i liii it mm i i fiiiii ^'^iliiil ill HH Pff i;; iiiiiiiiiiiiifiHiiiJH'ij'-imtimi!; 1 ill gfiiTFTTTnTTm it ili^ ft-, , ,.l[n-.S.^!OcWAQ^ 6561 / APlJ R 1QCO tHv «8. OT 1946 S APt^ 6 1953 iv 960 MP DEd- 1 1943 / jk- 3 1949 J MaAs 1 1949 J *Vff^ 1996 6 S ERlp i g=T95T S!f Cornell University Library PR 653.G28 Studies in English drama. First series.B 3 1924 013 272 152 if gg B| Cornell University The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31 92401 32721 52 Publications OF THE University of Pennsylvania^ SERIES IN PHILOLOGY AND LITERATURE Volume XIV STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA First Semes PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA SERIES IN PHILOLOGY AND LITERATURE VOLTJME I 1. Poetic and Verse CRrricisu of t^e Retgn of Elizabeth. By Felix E. ScheUing Jl.OO 2. A Fragment of the Babylonian "Debbassa" Epic. By Morris Jas- trow, Jr 60 3. a. TTpSs WITH THE ACCUSATIVE, b. NOTE ON A PASSAGE IN THE "AN- TIGONE." By William A. Lamberkm 50 Volume II 1. Recent AscH/EOLogical Explorations in the Vallev of the Del- aware River. By Charles C. Abbott 75 2. Observations on the Platform at Persefous. By Morton W. Easlon .25 3 The Life and Writings of George Gascoigne. By Felix E. Schelling 1.00 Volume III 1. ASSYRIACA. By Hermann V. Hilprecht 1 . 50 Volume IV 1. The Rhymes of Gower's "Confessio AmaNtis." By Morton W. Easlon .60 3. The War op the Theatres. By Josiali H. Penniman 1 .00 Volume V Two Plays op Miguel Sanchez (Surnahed "El Divino"). By Hugo A. Rennert 2 .00 Volume VI Researches upon the Antiquity op Man. By Henry C. Mercer 2 .00 Volume VII 1. "La Ingratitud Por Amor" (Comedia de Don Guillen de Castro). By Hugo A. Rennerl 1 .00 2. The Rise of Formal Satire in England Under Classical Influ- ence. By Raymond M. Alden 1 .00 Volume VIII 1. "The Faire Maide OF Bristow." (A Comedy.) By Arthur H.Quinn 1.00 2. The Sources of Plutarch's "Life of Cicero." By Alfred Gudeman. . 1.2S Volume IX 1. Palatal Diphihongization of Stem Vowels in the Old English Dialects. By Clarence G. Child 1.23 2. Feiedrich Schlegel's Relations with Reicharot and His Contri- butions to "Deutschland." By Samuel P. Capen 50 Volume X 1. George Chapman and "TheTragedie of Chabot Admirall of France." By Ezra Lehman 1 .25 2. A Study op the Poetry op John Donne. {In preparation.) By Martin G. Brumbaugh o.OO Volume XI "The Hector OF Geemanie." By Wentworth Smith. Edited by Leonidas Warren Payne^ Jr 1,25 Volume XII 1. Fletcher's "Royall King and Lovall Subject." By Kate Watkins Tibbals 1 . 25 2. Studies in the Word Play in Plautus. By Charles Jastrow Mendel- sohn 1 , 25 Volume XIII 1. WiLUAM Rowley. His "All's Lost by Lust," and "A Shoemaker, A Gentleman." With an Introduction. By Charles W. Stork 1.50 2. The Life and Poetry op Charles Cotton. By Charles Jacob Sem- iower 1 .50 3. The Influence of Ben Jonson on English Comedy. By Mina Kerr. . . 1 . 25 D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, Selling Agents \ Studies in English Drama FIRST SERIES BY JOHN LINTON CARVER, ALLISON GAW, CHARLES CLAYTON GUMM, ROSS JEWELL, MARTHA CAUSE McCAULLEY, and CLARENCE STRATTON EDITED BY ALLISON GAW WITH AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE BY FELEX E. SCHELLING UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA D. ACTtETON AND COMPANY, AGENTS, NEW YORK 1917 7^,' ' V (r^ ^^h^ COPYRIGHT, 1917 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA THE WAVERLY PRESS BALTIMORE, MD. INTRODUCTORY NOTE The six essays which constitute this volume have been se- lected because they are kindred in subject and lend them- selves — possibly more readily than some others — to a plan which necessitates condensation and a certain deviation from the purpose for which the majority of them were originally designed. Miss McCaulley's excellent paper on The Func- tions of the Non-Organic Portions of English Drama, alone of the following theses, is printed as it was presented to the De- partment. Each of the others was originally designed to serve as the matter introductory to a critical edition of the drama discussed; and contained, as at first submitted, con- siderable material which had to be suppressed or altered in adaptation to the sketchier purpose of a discussion of the lit- erary and historical questions involved. Nor is it to be for- gotten that in each of these cases, it was the preparation of an old text for the press, the noting of variants, sometimes of several editions, the study and elucidation not only of textual difficulties, but those of language, allusion, parallel and the like, that formed by far the most arduous portion of the task. For this reason it is not indulgence that is asked for the prod- ucts of this volume, but a recognition that, as these essays now stand, they represent only a partial fulfilment of an orig- inal task, one that was satisfactorily completed in each case, except as to publication. In a word, these theses set forth only those results that can be successfully displayed in the absence of the reprinting of a difficult and, in some cases, an all but inaccessible text. Once more, it is to be remarked that these theses were orig- inally prepared at periods varying from two years ago to as many as seven and nine. In such a lapse of time much water VI INTRODUCTORY NOTE has flowed under the bridges of scholarship, but in no instance have the conclusions reached in the subjects here discussed been materially affected. It may be noted that Dr. Gaw's discussion of Spanish influences antedates the treatment of this topic in The Cambridge History of English Literature by some four or five years. The industry of research has added certain items to the bibliography of other theses. It has been determined, on mature consideration, that this work is best represented as an honest rescript of a thing actually done rather than by perfecting it to misrepresent it. Lastly, the order of the essays in this volume has been determined by the nature of their subject matter. F. E. S. NOTE The essays in this volume were originally introductions to critical editions of plays which had been accepted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the University of Pennsylvania. PREFACE Similar as the following articles are in their purpose, subject matter, conditions of writing, and point of view, they yet differ somewhat widely in date of composition, in minor details of method, and in the relations of the sections here reprinted to the entire theses that they represent. Desiring to harmonize them with due justice both to subject matter and to author, the editor has attempted to bear in mind the facts not only that it is desirable to present them in a form as adequate as may be, but also that it is necessary to have due regard for their re- spective values as academic tests of scholarship. The occa- sional clashing of these two duties has compelled him to walk somewhat circumspectly. The editorial changes in the follow- ing pages, therefore, though considerable in number, yet con- cern themselves with matters of very minor importance. A sentence has been condensed here and there; and occasionally a phrase has been slightly clarified or a trifling inelegance has been eUded in cases where the original writers, after this lapse of time, would doubtless themselves have made similar cor- rections. In one case an entire sentence has been dropped where the writer's modesty caused him to be unduly hesitant concern- ing the value of his work. In another case the separation of the article from the text it was originally intended to accom- pany has necessitated the insertion of a resume of a scene in the text for comparison with a passage in its original source. Of course, in all cases where the wording has been modified, the sense has been most scrupulously preserved; but once or twice an editorial emendation as to a minor fact has been in- serted in a bracketed footnote. Brief titles of dramas have generally been normalized to their modern spelhngs. Title pages, quotations, and the like have, as a rule, been reprinted VUl PREFACE in the forms quoted by the authors of the individual theses, and have been textually verified only where the form was essential to the matter in hand. For the chapter headings the editor must, in general, bear the responsibility. The length of the sections in the first and last articles in the volume made such headings advisable, and for the sake of uniformity similar captions were introduced into the others in the series. The running analyses that accom- pany the chapter headings in the two longer articles, however, would obviously have been superfluous in the remaining cases. The bibHography has given rise to a question of some per- plexity. No two of the bibliographies accompanying the arti- cles agreed in system of classification, and in two cases the writers had depended, in Ueu of formal lists, upon the references at the foot of the page. On account of the lapse of time since the lists were originally prepared, and the natural disappear- ance, in some instances, of the fuller manuscript notes upon which the final Usts were based, a more specific reclassification was in several cases a matter of some diflScult;^. In general, therefore, the various bibliographies are reprinted in their re- spective original orders; and in the cases of the omitted lists, the material has been supplied from the footnotes, which have been correspondingly abbreviated. The point is of the less im- portance because in the instances in which introductions only are here printed, the bibliographies do not by any means in- clude all of the books that have proved fruitful in preparing the theses as wholes; and in no case do they represent the care that has gone into the examination of books that have jdelded no results. In several cases, in the hope of increasing their use- fulness, the original bibliographies have been slightly amplified by the addition of later references, such additions being en- closed in brackets. Especial thanks are due to Mr. A. B. Schmitt, instructor in Enghsh at the University of Pennsyl- vania, who gave valuable assistance in the task of verifying the entries verbatim et literatim, including a nimiber of items PREFACE IX that were inaccessible to the editor, and who also aided in making certain other necessary textual comparisons. In arranging the various manuscripts for the press, the edi- tor has repeatedly had a sense of keen regret that it was neces- sary to omit the separate prefaces to the various theses, with their warm words of appreciation for courtesies and encour- agement extended to the respective writers. While these ac- knowledgments reach out in many directions, it is needless to say that the names most frequently mentioned in this connec- tion are those of the members of the EngUsh faculty of the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania, and chief among them Dr. Fehx E. Schelling and Dr. Clarence G. Child. For his fellow-contribu- tors to this volume and for himself, the editor must express the greatness of the debt that we all owe to the skilful guidance and cordial sjmipathy of both these gentlemen; and one among our group must especially acknowledge his personal indebtedness to Dr. Schelling in particular, whose friendship has been a constant stimulus and whose penetrating scholarship has re- mained an ever-present professional ideal for him through a period of over fifteen years. A. G. University of Southern California, December, 1916 CONTENTS Introductory Note. Fdix E. Schelling v Preface vii 1. Tuke's Adventures op Five Hours, in Relation to the "Span- ish Plot" and to John Dryden. Allison Gaw, Head of the Department of English Language and Literature, University of Southern California 1 2. Heywood's Fair Maid of the West. Ross Jewell, Associate Pro- fessor of English and Registrar, Syracuse University 62 3. The Valiant Scot, "by J. W." John Linton Carver, Head of the Friends' School, Brooklyn, N. Y ' 75 4. Sir Ralph Freeman's Imperiale. Charles Clayton Qumm, Profes- sor of English, Polytechnic College, Fort Worth, Texas 105 5. The Cenci Story in Literature and in Fact. Clarence Stratton, Department of English, Central High School, St. Louis. . .7. 130 6. Function and Content op the Prologue, Chorus, and Other Non-Organic Elements in English Drama, prom the Begin- nings TO 1642. Martha Cause McCaulley, Dean of Women, Washington University, St. Louis . .'. 161 Bibliography 259 Index 268 TUKE'S ADVENTURES OF FIVE HOURS IN RELATION TO THE "SPANISH PLOT" AND TO JOHN DRYDEN ALLISON GAW The re-opening of the London theatres at the end of the period of their suppression by the Puritans and shortly before the Restoration of the Stuart line to the throne of England in 1660, opens what is in many respects a new epoch in the evolution of English drama, — an epoch the leading tendencies of which are indeed traceable in some of the productions of the first half of the seventeenth century, but which is never- theless marked by the complete crystallization of certain new types of plays, by a general interest in the possibihties of the neo-classic ideals of dramatic composition, and by the intro- duction of several almost revolutionary features in methods of presentation. In the nine years between Davenant's first cautious experiment with the "opera," The Siege of Rhodes, in 1656 and the closing of the theatres on account of the plague in 1665, Restoration drama passed through a period of transi- tion and to a great extent found itself. In this period public attention was focused successively upon three Restoration plays that introduced three more or less distinct types of drama, namely, Davenant's TAe Siege of Rhodes of 1656 and 1661,Tuke's The Adventures of Five Hours of 1663, and Etherege's The Comical Revenge of 1664; while during 1665-66 was written Dryden's Essay of Dramatic Poesy. The first named intro- duced the Restoration "opera" and is the prototype of the "heroic play;" the third in its gay realistic comedy anticipated Congreve; and the fourth discussed at length the chief prob- lems in the dramatic criticism of the day and is moreover the 1 I STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA first piece of extended formal dramatic criticism by an Eng- lish professional critic and playwright. But the significance of the second, Tuke's Adventures of Five Hours, has been ob- scured by the inadequacy of the records of the years 1660-65 and by the fact that the play has been generally accessible only in the revised version of 1671. It is the purpose of this study to indicate that significance, to point out the interest that attaches to the play as moulder and index of the tastes of the Restoration pubUc, and to trace the reciprocal relations existing between it and the early criticism of John Dryden.^ II. Early History of the "Adventures of Five Hours" Theatrical Conditions between 1660 and 1663. — ^Eariy Performances of The Adventures, 1663. — Its Popularity. — The Folio Edition of 1663. — • The Attitude of Diyden.— Light on The Wild Gallant.— The. Quarto of 1664. — Other Contemporary Criticism. When the overthrow of the Puritan supremacy in 1660 made possible a revival of the drama, the repertoire of the new theatrical companies naturally consisted in the main of the most successful plays of the Elizabethan period. These in- cluded, foremost to early Restoration tastes, the dramas of Beaiunont and Fletcher; second, those of Jonson and Shake- speare, the latter often in adapted form; third, those of Shirley; and in addition, such individual plays as Middleton and Row- ley's The Changeling, Massmger's The Bondsman, and Webster's The Duchess of Malji. As during the eighteen-year theatrical interregnum no new school of dramatic writers had had op- ' In the following study all act and line references to passages in The Adventures of Five Hours necessarily are indicated by the numbering in the critical ecption basing upon the folio of 1663 (F), and collated with the quartos of 1664 (Ql) and 1671 (Q2), to which the material here printed was originally intended to serve as introduction. Thus, citations marked Q2 are to the Q2 reading of the line of the given munber in F; and citations containing the word after are to a Q2 insertion following the cited line in F Unfortunately, copies of the 1663 and 1664 editions are quite rare, and the play is known almost solely in the revised and historically less significant form of the 1671 quarto. For this the most convenient reference is the fifteenth volume of Hazlitt's Dodsley (1874), in which, however, the lines are unnumbered and which in other respects leaves much to be desired. tuke's adventures of five hours 3 portunity to develop, when we examine the Scanty records for theatrical productions of plays by contemporary writers between General Monk's first formal license to open a theatre, issued soon after February 3, 1660, and the first production of The Adventures on January 8, 1662-3, we naturally find the list a very short one. In 1661 Sir WiUiam Davenant, the manager of The Duke of York's Company, staged an elabora- tion of his "opera," The Siege of Rhodes, of 1656;^ a new second part of the same;' and revivals of two of his pre-Restoration pieces, The Witi^ and Love and Honour} Thomas Killigrew, the manager of The King's Company, revived his pre-Restora- tion tragicomedy, Claracilla, in July, 1661;' but whether any other of the ten dramas pubUshed by him in 1664 were produced in the period mentioned is extremely doubtful. On October 26, 1661, Pepys found the Duke of Newcastle's comedy. The Coun- try Captain, too "silly" for even his tolerant theatrical taste.' Toward the end of the same year Cowley's Cutter of Coleman Street^ aroused considerable animosity by satirizing the scum of the adherents to the now victorious royalist party. In Oc- tober, 1662, the acting of Stanford in the part of Mahgni made The Villain, by Thomas Porter, the talk of the town.' None of the plays of Sir Robert Stapylton nor of the French transla- tions of Sir William Lower, so far as is known, were performed in the period specified; but Pepys on December 1, 1662, wit- nessed a Court performance of Corneille's Cid, "A most dull thing acted, .... nor did the King, or Queen once smile all the whole play, nor did any of the company seem to take any pleasure but what was in the greatness and gallantry ' Downes, Roscius AngUcamis, (ed. 1886), 21. *Ibid., 21. * Pepys, Diary, August 15, 1661. ' Genest, Some Account of the English Stage from .... 1660 to 1830, I, 41. ' Genest, op. cit.,J, 36. ''Diary, (ed. 1897), II, 126. As references to this Diary are easily iden- tified by date, page citations are not usually hereafter given. ' Genest, op. cit., I., 40. "Ibid., I, 42-43; but cf. the opinions of Pepys ia Diary (ed. 1897), II, 368, 425; III, 2. 4 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA of the company." Of these plays by contemporary English writers, only the two parts of The Siege of Rhodes, and possibly also Love and Honour, need be mentioned as really significant dramas from the historical point of view. Such was the state of dramatic Uterary production when The Adventures of Five Hours was first presented to the public. Its author, Samuel Tuke (?— 1674)," had been a Royalist colonel during the Civil War, and through the Protectorate had hved abroad. Between 1649 and 1660 we catch glimpses of him as sightseer, roisterer, duelist, and wit, at Paris, in Holland, and with the royal exiles (where he was "a great oracle in this little Court," writes Sir Edward Nicholas) in Flanders. In the latter place, then a part of the Spanish Netherlands, he proba- bly obtained his knowledge of the Spanish tongue. At the Restoration, after having written a " character" of " the King,"i^ " The earliest dated mention of him is that of his admission to Gray's Inn, August 14, 1635. The date of his death, midnight of January 25-26, 1673-4, is fixed by the combined evidence of Mrs. Evelyn's letter reprinted in Evel3ai's Diary (ed. 1906), IV, 59; Eveljm's Dwyunder March 15, 1672-3, when Tuke was still living; and Anthony k Wood, Athenae Oxon- ienses (ed. 1721), II, 288; though Mrs. Evelyn's letter is apparently as- signed a date a year too early by the editor. What is known of him is conveniently summarized in the Dictionary of National Biography, LVII, 300, citing authorities. Among the latter see especially the Diary of his cousin by marriage, John Evel}m. This is high authority for the bare fact recorded as occurring on a given day under Eveljm's personal observation, but the entries were undoubtedly amplified from memory by the diarist long afterward, and all such amplifications must be carefully tested. Thus he inserts the words " (later Sir Samuel)", in an entry under October 1, 1649, thirteen years before Tuke was knighted; under date of October 17, 1671, he speaks of Sir Samuel in a tone implying that he had been dead for several years although the writer had been present with Tuke at the baptism of Tuke's infant son less than two months previous and speaks of him as stiU alive under a date of seventeen months later; under date of December 23, 1662, he speaks of The Adventures of Five Hours as being the work of "Sir Geo. Tuke," although he well knew the name of the author to whom he wrote the strong commendatory verses to be cited later, and although Tuke's brother George was apparently never knighted; and so forth. In the following pages all biographical statements for which no authority is cited, may be easily traced through the Dictionary of National Biography or through Eveljm. " Probably the "Character of Charles the Second written by an impar- tial hand, and exposed to public view for the information of the people '* quarto, London, 1660 [British Museum Catalogue under Samuel Tukeh TUKE S ADVENTTTRES OF FIVE HOURS 5 he had been entrusted by Charles II in October, 1660, with con- fidential communications to the Queen Mother, Henrietta Maria, at Paris; and in March, 1660-1661, with a formal mes- sage of condolence to the French Court upon the death of Car- dinal Mazarin. After having been reputed an atheist, he had been converted to Roman Catholicism before January, 1658- 1659, and in 1660 and again in 1661 he had addressed the House of Lords in behalf of his co-religionists. For the newly organ- ized Royal Society he is said to have written a "History of the Generation and Ordering of Green Oysters, Commonly called Colchester-Oysters," printed in Sprat's History of the Royal Society ;^^ and The Adventures of Five Hours shows distinct traces of his polite, if not profound, interest in the new move- ment toward scientific research.^' It may be added that he was a cousin of Mary, wife of John Evelyn the diarist, and that although perhaps unduly self -appreciative," he was neverthe- less a man of sterling worth, and in the midst of a profligate Court made, both by word and action, a determined protest against immorality.'^ though possibly "The Faithful yet Imperfect Character of a Glorious King, King Charles I, His Country's and Religion's Martyr," 12 mo., London, 1660 [E. M. Thompson in the Hatton Correspondence, I, 20, note], ■* Pp. 307-309 of the 1702 edition, where it appears without ascription of authorship. I know not on ' what ground Dodsley's Old Plays, in its various editions, and the Dictionary of National Biography ascribe this to Tuke. It is true that Colchester is not far from the seat of the Tuke family at Frayling, Essex. " See Adventures, Folio III, 239-40; V, 65-67; Quarto 2 after I, 39S-6; Q2, IV. 132-5. C/. Sprat's History, ed. 1702, pp. 173-9, 255, 312-13; 248-9, 254, 311-12; 225. Cf. also Evelyn, Diary, February 24, 1663-4. " Cf. Pepys, Diary, February 15, 1668-9; the comments on his "vanity" and "formal smile" in The Sessions of the Poets, to be quoted later; and the general tone of his prologues, epilogues, and 1671 preface. "In addition to the preface, prologues, epilogues and general tone of The Adventures, see also Evelyn, Diary, September 27, 1666; October 17, 1671; and Mrs. Evelyn's letters, quoted in Diary (ed. 1906), IV, 59-60. See also ids characteristic allusions to various moral codes, quite in keeping with his political and religious .conservatism: "Laws of Decency" (Adven- tures, F, I, 238); "Rules of Conduct" (II, 244;) 'Rules of Decency" (III, 508-9); "Definitions in Morality" (III, 519); "Rules of Temperance" (V, 213); "Laws of HospitaUty" (V, 218); and "Laws of Honor" (II, 357; V, 243, 405, 520); not to speak of the "Five Hours' Law" (F, Prologue, 6) and the "Law of Comedy" (V, 755). 6 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA The composition of The Adventures of Five Hours may proba- bly be assigned to the year 1662. From the Prologue at Court it would seem that Tuke felt that his favor at Court was declin- ing and thought, as he tells us, to "retire from sight." Appar- ently as a final dignified bid for advancement, he undertook the translation of the Spanish play, Los Empenos de Sets Horas, the idea springing from his overhearing a chance remark of the king's in admiration of that drama," a remark which, after the success of his experiment, was represented by Tuke as a definite request of the king's that he should make the translation." It is impossible not to suspect that one speech of Antonio's (not found in the Spanish) was very pointedly intended for the royal ear. Octavio. I joy to see you here, but should have thought It likelier to have heard of you at Court, Pursuing, there the Recompences due To your transcendent Merit. Antonio. That is no place for men of my Moralitie. I have been taught, Octavio, to Deserve, But not to Seek Reward; that does prophane The Dignity of Virtue; if Princes For their own Interests will not advance Deserving Subjects, they must raise Themselves By a brave Contempt of Fortune. Diuring the time that Tuke was at work upon the play, as we learn from the Dedication, he "held his fortune" from his newly made friend, Henry Howard of Norfolk, at whose villa at Aldbury in Surrey the translation was actually written, and with whom he long remained on intimate terms.^' " Prologue at Court, lines 6-8. " Prologue at Court, side note; also Preface to edition of 1671. " We may here briefly dispose of the claim of Lord Digby, Earl of Bristol, to a share in the authorship of The Adventures. It rests solely upon the statement of Downes {Roscius AngUcanus, ed. 1886, p. 22) that the play was "Wrote by the Earl of Bristol, and Sir Samuel Tuke." Downes was writing from memory only (for certainly no bill of the play ever bore such a statement) and after a lapse of over forty years {i.e., later than October 1706). His liability to inaccuracy is an established fact (c/. Genest, I 27* and Knight's introduction to the 1886 edition of the Roscius AngUcanus TUKE'S ADVENTURES OF FIVE HOURS 7 Despite the statement of the Prologue to the pubHc perform- ance that the first production of the play occurred on December IS, [1662]/' John Evel3Ti notes on December 23 that it was still in reheaifal. The actual date of first performance is set- tled for us by the evidence both of Ilveljm and of Pepys. The latter gives the following vivacious account of his afternoon and evening on January 8, 1662-3:^" "Dined at home: and there being the famous new play acted the first time today, which is called 'The Adventures of Five Hours,' at the Duke's House [i.e., The Duke of York's Theatre], being they say, made or translated by Colonel Tuke, I did long to see it; and so made my wife to get her ready, though we were forced to send for a p. xxii); and since he knew that Bigby had written two other plays of the same tjrpe, 'Tis Better than it was and Worse and Worse, confusion in this case would be especially easy. A searching investigation of all the facts in the case has produced not another shred of evidence in favor of Digby's collaboration with Tuke. On the other hand, the evidence against it is overwhelming. The dedication to the first edition of The Adventures states distinctly that the play was "bred" and "brought up" upon "the terrace walks" of " the garden at Aldbury" belonging to Tuke's patron and dedi- catee, Henry Howard of Norfolk. His 1671 title page and preface claim for Tuke all the credit for the play in both the original and the revised form. The political difficulties that obliged Digby to leave London, and later England, from August 10, 1663, to July 29, 1667 (Pepys, Diary, HI, 245-6; IV, 75, 79, 123; VII, 46, 196, 199) offer no reason for any conceal- ment of Digby's collaboration, for the earliest hints of the parliamentary trouble that led to Digby's downfall do not occur until July 1, 1663, {ibid., Ill, 189), and on May 15th he was certainly still in favor with the King {ibid., in, 123), by which time Tuke's first edition must have gone to press. When the 1671 edition of The Adventures appeared, Digby had for four years been restored to favor (and high favor; cf. Pepys, VII, 196, 199), and moreover he had probably permitted the publication of Elvira, thus acknowledging his dramatic pretensions. Again, in the little gossipy court of Charles II the participation of Digby in the very successful play could scarcely have been kept a secret, yet none either of Tuke's critics or of his defenders (including his cousin, John Evelyn, who had attended one of the rehearsals) mentions any other name than Tuke's in connection with the play. Furthermore, Sir William Davenant deliberately chose the play for a performance especially in honor of the Earl of Clarendon, who had long been Digby's bitterest foe. An exhaustive comparison ^ the styles of The Adventures and of Digby's Elvira also fails to supsffit Digby's claim. Without doubt, in ascribing The Adventures in pain to Digby Downes was wrong. " Probably the date of the proposed first performance, later postponed, and never corrected in the Prologue manuscript. ^'^Diary (ed. 1897), III, 8. 8 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA smith, to break open her trunk, her mayde Jane being gone forth with the keys, and so we went; and though early, were forced to sit aknost out of sight, at the end of one of the lower forms, so full was the house. And the play, in one word, is the best for the variety and the most excellent continuance of the plot to the very end, that ever I saw, or think ever shall, and all possible, not only to be done in the time, but in most other respects very admittable, and without one word of ribaldry; and the house, by its frequent plaudits, did show their suf- ficient approbation." The cast of the first performance, according to Downes^' the prompter, was in part as follows : Don Henrique Mr. Betterton Antonio Mr. Harris Octavio Mr. Young Diego Mr. Underbill Ernesto Mr. Sandford The Corrigidor Mr. Smith Silvio Mr. Price Camilla Mrs. Davenport Portia Mrs. Betterton Flora Mrs. Long Downes, writing nearly forty years later, adds that it was " Cloath'd so Excellently Fine in proper Habits, and Acted so justly well;" and in his prologue Tuke tells us that "the Scenes are New," by "scenes" probably meaning here, as in some other passages in the play, the stage-settings. Evidently the production was, for the day, elaborate. The prologue, important in several connections, must be quoted in full: ^' Roscius Anglicanus (ed. 1886), 22-23. tuke's adventures of five hours 9 The Prologue enters with a Play-bill in his hand, and Reads, This Day being the ISth of December, shall be Acted a New Play, never Plai'd before, call'd The Adventures of Five Hours. A NEW PLAY. TH' are i' the right, for I dare boldly say. The English Stage ne'r had so New a Play; The Dress, the Author, and the Scenes are New. This ye have seen before ye'l say; 'tis true; But tell me. Gentlemen, who ever saw A deep Intrigue confin'd to Five Hours Law. Such as for close Contrivance jdelds to none : A Modest Man may praise what's not his own. 'Tis true, the Dress is his, which he submits To those who are, and those who would be Wits; Ne'r spare him Gentlemen, for to speak truth. He has a per'lous cens'rer been in's Youth; And now grown Bald with Age, Doating on Praise, He thinks to get a Periwig of Bays. Teach him what 'tis, in this Discerning Age To bring his heavy Genius on the Stage; Where you have seen such Nimble Wits appear. That pass'd so soon, one scarce could say th' were here. Yet after our Discoveries of late Of their Designs, who would Subvert the State; You'l wonder much, if it should prove his Lot, To take all England with a Spanish Plot; But if through his ill Conduct, or hard Fate, This Forein Plot (like that of Eighty Eight) Should suffer Shipwrack in your Narrow Seas, You'll give your Modem Poet his Writ of Ease; For by th' Example of the King of Spain, He resolves ne'r to trouble you again. The epilogue more pointedly called attention to the merits of the piece: Diego comes stealing in, and is follow'd by Henrique, who stays at the Door, and Listens. Die[go]. Come Gentlemen! Let the Dons, and Monsieurs say what they will; For our parts, we are for Old England still. Here's a fine Play indeed, to lay the Scene In three Houses of the same Town, O mean! 10 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA Why we have several Plays, where I defie Th' Devil to tell where the Scene does lie; Sometimes in Greece, and then they make a step To Transilvania, thence at one Leap To Greece again: this shows a ranging Brain, Which scorns to be confin'd t' a Town in Spain. Then for the Plot; The possible Adventures of Five Hours; A copious Design, why, in some of ours Many of th' Adventures are impossible, Or if to be atchiev'd, no Man can tell Within what time; this shows a rare Invention, When the Design's above your Comprehension: Whil'st here y'are treated with a Romance Tale, And a Plot cover'd with a Spanish Veil. As for the Style; It is as easie as a Proclamation, As if the Play were Pen'd for th' whole Nation. None of those thundring Lines, which use to crack Our Breaths, and set your Wits upon the Rack. Who can admire this Piece, or think it good; There's not one Line, but may be understood. The Raillerie: As innocent, as if 't had past the Test Of a full Synod: not one Baudy Jeast; Nor any of those Words of Double Sense, Which makes th' Ladies, to show their Innocence, Look so demure; whil'st by a simp'ring Smile, The Gallant shows he understands the Style. But here you have a Piece so subtly Writ, Men must have Wit themselves to find the Wit: Faith that's too much; therefore by my consent, We'l Damn the Play. Henr[ique]. Think'st thou. Impertinent, That these, who know the Pangs of bringing forth [Pointing to the Pit. A Living Scene, should e'r destroy this Birth. You ne'r can want such Writers, who aspire To please the Judges of that Upper Tire [Tier]. * tjf TUKe's adventures Ot ITVE KOV^S il The Knowing are his Peers, and for the rest Of the Illiterate Crou4 (though finely drest) The Author hopes, he never gave them cause To think, he'd waste his Tirtq for their Applause. You then (most equal Judges J' freely give Your Votes, whether this Play should Die, or Live. Passing over, for the present, the stress laid upon the unity of time in this prologue and epilogue, it may be noted that the emphasis on the possibility' of the story and on clearness of style are new ideals in the early Restoration period, the latter being especially interesting as coming from a member of the Royal Society within a few months after its incorporation;^^ that the aristocratic appeal to his "peers" and outspoken con- tempt for the opinion of the citizens result from a general class fear of loss of caste on the part of the gentleman-author, a fear that was largely to disappear during the course of the next decade ;'* and that the emphasis upon decency was an indi- vidual revolt againt early Restoration excesses. TIml popularity of the play was extraordinary. According to the old prompter, it "took Successively 13 'Days together, no other play intervening."^ In order to estimate the signifi- cance of this thirteen-day run we must remember that in that small circle of novelty-loving patrons of the two Uttle theatres. The Siege of Rhodes, with all the Sclat of the opening of a new theatre, brilliant with "new Scenes and Decorations, being the first that e're were Introduc'd in England," ran only twelve days; Porter's great success, The Villain, only ten days; and The Cutter of Coleman Street and The Duchess of Malfi, the lat- ter "proving one of the Best of Stock Tragedies," a week and eight days respectively.^^ In fact, before the closing of the ^ Cf. the well known passage in Sprat's History of the Royal Society in which he says that they "have exacted from all their members a close, naked, natural way of speaking; positive expressions; clear senses; a native easiness: bringing all things as near the mathematical plainness as they can." " Cf.j for instance, Tuke's own title pages of 1663 and 1671. See also the prologue to Diyden's Rival Ladies (1664) and the epilogue to The In- dian Emperor (1664 or 166S). "Downes, 22-23. ^Tbid., 21, 23, 2i. 12 Studies in English drama § theatres in June, 1665, because of the plague, the only longer runs, so far as is known, were an elaborate revival of Henry VIII, which exceeded Tuke's play by two days, and Etherege's The Comical Revenge, which gay and reahstic comedy may have held the stage for approximately a month.^^ In addition to this thirteen-day run. The Adventures was accorded the honor of a production at Court in the presence of the king;^' and as we know" from a prologue for the occasion preserved among the works of Sir William Davenant,^* it was also the play selected for production before the Lord Chancellor^' at the annual performance before him in the Temple at some time before 1667, very probably during its earliest popularity. Furthermore, the later references to it by Dryden give us rea- son to beUeve that it was kept more or less before the pubhc up to 1665. Other evidence of the success of the play exists in abundance. John Evelyn notes in a diary entry evidently amplified long afterwards: "January 8th, 1662-3. I went to see my kinsman Sir Geo.'" Tuke's comedy acted at ye Duke's Theatre, which took so universally, that it was acted for some weekes every day, and 'twas beUev'd it would be worth to the comedians £400 or £500. The plot was incomparable but the language stiffe and formal." Thus supported, the testimony of the commendatory verses of Christopher Wase and "MElpomene" (edition of 1664) as to 2= Downes says that the piece brought the company £1000 in the course of a month. ^' The statement that the first performance of The Adventures was at court (Dodsley, Old Plays, ed. 1780; Scott, Ancient British Drama, III, 409; Hume, Spanish Infltience on English Literature, 292) is incorrect. The line in the Epilogue at Court, "We have pass'd the Lords, and Com- mons," must apply to Tuke's differentiation between the aristocrats and the citizen class in the public theatre, as indicated in his public Drolosue 28 Ed. 1673, p. 339. ''I.e., Lord Clarendon, chancellor from 1660 to 1667, for whose interest in things Spanish and in literature see Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancel- lors of England, IV, 44; Scott-Saintsbury ed. of Dryden, IX, 63; Maidment and Logan ed. of Davenant, III, 257. Sir Orlando Bridgman, chancellor between 1667 and Davenant's death in 1668, was a man of totally different tastes. '" See present volume, p. 4 n. 10. tuke's adventures of five hours 13 the scenes in the theatre may be given considerable credit. Says the former: Th' impartial multitude (to do them right) Own all their passions, and profess delight; Not yet concern'd in Faction, far from Guile When mov'd to Joy, or Pity, Weep, or Smile; Ten times the Play recall with generous heat. Ten times attend, and fresh Applause repeat. And "MElpomene" is almost equally emphatic with regard to its effect upon the judicious: The silent Circle were in a suspense, Not knowing where to wish the preference You from your Rivals discords do produce Such a delightful concord, that all those Who fear'd their Fate, are pleas'd that they were foes. In whose serene, and setled Looks we find Delight, and Wonder did possess their mind. Whose strict attention speaks your praises higher Than the loud Plaudits of the Upper Tire. Samuel Pepys, in taste the accepted type of the Restoration theatre-goer, saw the play four times prior to 1670, read it twice, and was enthusiastic as to its merits. Follow his en- tries on the subject prior to 1667 : January 17, 1662-3 after dinner to the Duke's playhouse, where we did see "The Five Hours'' entertainment again, which indeed is a very fine play, though, through my being out of order, it did not seem so good as at first; but I could discern it was not any fault in the play. May 31, 1663. . . . Home to dinner, and after dinner up and read part of the new play of "The Five Houre's Adventures,'' which though I have seen it twice, yet I never did admire or understand it enough, it being a play of the greatest plot that ever I expect to see, and of great vigor quite through the whole play, from beginning to the end. [And on the next morning:] Begun again to rise betimes by 4 o'clock, and made an end of "The Adventures of Five Houres," and it is a most excellent play- August IS, 1666. . . . Home, my head akeing and drowsy, and to dinner and then lay down up on the couch, thinking to get a little rest. 14 STtTDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA but could not. So down the river, reading "The Adventures of Five Houres," which the more I read the more I admire. August 20, 1666. ... Up, and to Deptford by water, reading "Othello, Moore of Veriice," which I ever heretofore esteemed a mighty- good play, but having so lately read "The Adventures of Five Houres," it seems a mean thing." The copy of the play owned by Pepys was the small folio of 1663, the first edition. Of this the title-page reads as follows: "The / Adventures/ of / Five Hours. / A/Tragi-comedy. jNon ego VentoscB Plehis Suffragia venor. / Horat. // Febr. 21° 1662. / Imprimatur / John BerkeHhead. // London, / Printed for Henry Herringman, at the An- / chor in the Lower Walk of the New Exchange, 1663." A dedicatory letter addressed to Henry Howard of Norfolk, the Prologue, the Prologue at Court, the list of Dramatis Personae, and a notice of three Errors of the Printer are followed by seventy-two numbered pages, includ- ing the public and the court epilogues. Stage directions, aside from entrances and exits, are placed in the broad margin. On the whole careful in typography, this small foho is evidently the result of an attempt to produce a book worthy of the atten- tion given to the play. One of the most striking evidences of the impression made upon the town by The Adventures comes from a rival dramatist at the opposition theatre. On February 5, 1663,'^ less than two weeks after the opening run of our play had ended, appeared The Wild Gallant, the first (and unsuccessful) comedy of John Dryden. In both his prologue and epilogue this new aspirant for popular favor dehberately assimied an antagonistic atti- tude toward Tuke. The speaker of the prologue apphes to " This startling statement is not to be ascribed to "congenital Inability of the most inveterate toughness to appreciate dramatic poetry" (see Mr. Sidney Lee, Shakespeare and the Modern Stage, 99), but is rather the result of an involuntary judging of Of Ae^io by the standards that Tuke emphasizes for The Adventures, namely, preservation of unity of time and place and' strange yet possible complexity of coincidence. Cf. Pepys' own comments on the first performance, as quoted on pp. 7-8. Pepys must be judged in the light of the historical significance of Tuke's play. ™ See its prologue in Scott-Saintsbury ed. of Dryden, II, 20. tuke's adventures of five hours 15 two astrologers to cast the horoscope of the new-born comedy. The ensuing conversation is partly as follows: 1. Astr. But, brother, Ptolemy the learned says, 'Tis the fifth house from which we judge of plays. Venus, the lady of that house, I find Is Peregrine; your play is ill-designed; It should have been but one continued song, Or, at the least, a dance of three hours long. 2. Astr. But yet the greatest mischief does remain. The twelfth apartment bears the lords of Spain; Whence I conclude, it is your author's lot. To be endangered by a Spanish plot. Prologue. (To the audience). Our poet yet protection hopes from you, But bribes you not with anything that's new. Nature is old, which poets imitate, And, for wit, those, that boast their own estate. Forget Fletcher and Ben before them went. Their elder brothers, and that vastly spent; So much, 'twill scarcely be repair'd again, Not, though supplied with all the wealth of Spain. This play is English and the growth your own; As such, it yields to English plays alone. He could have wish'd it better for your sakes. But that, in plays, he finds you love mistakes: Besides, he thought it was in vain to mend. What you are bound in honour to defend; That English wit, howe'er despised by some. Like English valour, still may overcome. That is, the first astrologer regrets that the play is straight comedy, sinc^to succeed it should have been an "opera" Uke The Siege of Rhodes. The second astrologer believes that it is "endangered by a Spanish plot," i.e., by the recent popular- ity of The Adventures of Five Hours. Turning upon this refer- ence and alluding to the opening of Tuke's prologue, Th' are i' the right, for I dare boldly say. The English Stage ne'r had so new a play, etc., the Prologue declares that Dryden, on the contrary, Bribes you not with anything that's new. 16 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA Not all the wealth of Spain can make Tuke or his like the equals of Fletcher or Jonson. The Wild Gallant "is English and the growth your own;" it will not admit inferiority to any Spanish plot. Moreover, the author is sure you will not cen- sure his shortcomings, because "in plays he finds you love mistakes;" a reference to the mistakes of Antonio, Henrique, and Carlos, in the compUcated intrigue of The Adventures,^ probably also with a covert sneer at Tuke's Uterary shortcom- ings, especially in versification.^ Finally, the audience is bound to defend the proposition that, in spite of the low opinion held of it by "some" {i.e., notably Tuke in his epilogue), Eng- lish wit will continue to triumph.^^ Again in his epilogue Dryden resumes the attack. Tuke's epilogue had declared The Adventures so subtly Writ, Men must have Wit themselves to find the Wit: .... The Knowing are his Peers, and for the rest Of the Illiterate Croud (though finely dressed) The Author hopes, he never gave them cause To think, he'd waste his Time for their Applause. ^'Malone {Critical and Miscellaneous Prose Works of Dryden, I, 54) interprets the line as a reference to the mistakes of Teague in Sir Robert Howard's The Committee (seen by Evelyn on November 27, 1662). But is is enmeshed in a long passage the reference of which to The Adventures is unmistakable. " Cf. the passages from the Essay of Dramatic Poesy to be quoted later. "> In this preface the lines. "Whence I conclude, it is your author's lot, To be endangered by a Spanish plot," have hitherto been misinterpreted by Dryden's editors and critics to mean that Dryden was translating from a Spanish source. {Cf. Scott in Scott- Saintsbury ed. of Dryden, II, 23; Saintsbury in the same, II, 25; Gosse, Eighteenth Century Literature, 41; Ward, History of English Dramatic Lit- erature, III, 346; and (with modifications and misquotation) Courthope, History of English Poetry, IV, 438-9.) While Dryden's plot is not original {cf. his preface in ed. cit., II, 27-28), his emphatic declaration in the pro- logue, "This play is English, and the growth your own," fixes his source as English, since if he is referring to the comedy's being simply an English adaptation, Tuke's play would be as English as The Wild Gallant. Inci- dentally, this unmistakable evidence that The Wild Gallant was not a trans- lation from the Spanish removes the only piece of evidence of any weight supporting the belief that John Dryden had a reading knowledge of Spanish tuke's adventures of five hours 17 To this Dryden contrasts his own attitude: There is not any person here so mean, But he may freely judge each act and scene: But if you bid him choose his judges, then, He boldly names true English gentlemen: For he ne'r thought a handsome garb or dress So great a crime, to make their judgment less.'' Thus at the beginning of his career as a dramatist does Dryden give evidence of his unrivalled "knack of telling allusion to passing events .... as a prologue writer. "*' It will be noted that the first edition of The Adventures, licensed for publication about two weeks after the production and failure of The Wild Gallant, bears upon its title page Tuke's answer, in the Horatian motto: Non ego Ventosae Plebis Suf~ fragia venor, a pointed reiteration of his attitude that the approval or disapproval of the "windy multitude" was a matter of complete indifference to him. Doubtless Tuke intended that his opponent should take the adjective of the poet in all the pregnancy of its Latin meanings. Dryden's The Rival Ladies, acted about the end of 1663, and printed the following year, also contains a possible allusion to The Adventures. The prologue comments upon the fallen es- tate of the contemporary stage: You now have habits, dances, scenes, and rhymes: High language often; ay, and sense, sometimes. As for a clear contrivance, doubt it not; They blow out candles to give light to th' plot.'* '6 Dryden, ed. cit., II, 121. " Saintsbury, John Dryden, 63-64. As further evidence of the impres- sion that the controversy made upon him, we may note that thirty years later (and twenty years after Tuke's death) Dryden apparently had fresh in memory the eighth line of Tuke's prologue. In the dedication of the Examen Poeticum prefied to bis Miscellany of 1693 he observes, "At least as Sir Samuel Tuke has said before me, a modest man may praise what is not his own." (Dryden's Essays, ed. Ker, II, 14.) The line had not appeared in print, and had probably not been uttered on the stage, since 1664. 's Diyden, ed. cit., II, 141. 18 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA The last line may refer to the scene in which Tuke's Flora re- lights the extinguished candle by blowing upon it.*' But Tuke did not lack other adverse criticism. In the year following the appearance of the foho edition, there appeared a second edition. This is a quarto, and has the following title- page: "The / Adventures / of / Five / Hours. / A / Tragi-Comedy. / The Second Edition. / Non ego Ventosae Plebis Suffragia venor I Horat. // Feb. 12. \sk\ 1662. / Imprimatur / John Berken- head // London, / Printed for Henry Herringman, and are to be sold at his Shop / at the Sign of the Anchor in the Lower Walk of / the New Exchange. 1664." All prefatory matter to the end of the Dramatis Personae is re-set in carefully composited form, eight commendatory poems being inserted after the dedication. Except for the last three pages which are newly set up, the text of the play, quite unre- vised, is in the original compositing,^" though repaged to cover, with epilogues, one hundred and seven unnumbered pages. The eight commendatory poems" are by Colonel (later Sir) James Long, author of a non-extant work on The History and the Causes of the Civil War; John Evelyn, the diarist; Abraham Cowley, the most famous poet of the day; Dr. Jasper Need- ham, the friend and physician of Evel)Ti; Lodowick CarUle (or Carliell), a survivor of the generation of dramatists of the days of Charles I; Christopher Wase, classical scholar and trans- lator, then headmaster of Dedham royal free school; William Jo3Tier, a Catholic scholar, later to produce a successful Roman tragedy; and "MElpomene," who may be pretty certainly S9 The Adventures, V, 30-39. *" From the fact that the type was held for the second edition from before May 31, 1663 (when Pepys owned a copy of the first edition) until at least March 2S, 1664 (when 1664 legally began), a period of some ten months, it is probable that the advisabUity of a second edition containing material in Tuke's defence must have been perceived very soon after the appearance of the folio. Undoubtedly the commendatory poems were the chief motive for the second edition. The publication of two single editions of a given play in two successive years is aknost unparalleled in this period. " Easily accessible in Dodsley's Old Plays (ed. 1874), vol. XV. tuke's adventures of five hours 19 identified with Tuke's cousin Mary, wife of John Evel)^!.^^ In the Ught of the failure of Dryden's Wild Gallant it is sig- nificant that these poems are very obviously a defense of Tuke against unfriendly critics, typically unsuccessful dramatists. [You] raise the envy of those men who grieve To see your Play do's, and is like to live; While their crude births, for lack of genial fire, No sooner are produced, than expire, says Dr. Needham; and Evelyn and his wife hint the same. According to Evelyn, What though the Serpent bite, and Fools revile. He breaks his Teeth who thinks to hurt your rUe. But why would you be so Injurious to The other House?*' all our old Plays undo? All our New ones at least? For who will write? Who can indeed, unless it be in spight? And "MElpomene" adds a postscript to say: You to all other Writers give their due; And forgive those, who have deny'd it you; .... Though (whilst you live) they envy your just Praise, They wiU (when dead) your Cypress wreath with Bayes. In his preface of 1671 Tuke also refers to the "Haggard Muses" of his rivals. Beside Dryden's, another fragment of the attack upon our author has come down to us in some satirical verses in a con- *^The grounds for identifying "MElpomene" with Mary Evelyn are as follows: The desire for anonymity, the sex of the pseudonym, the rehgious tone and general style of the lines (and shall we add, the addition of a post- script?) all point to a woman as the writer. The careful compositing of all new material in Ql (aside from a few careless stage-directions) make it very improbable that the capital E is a misprint. "M. E." then, are prob- ably her initials. Mary Evelyn's strong friendship for Tuke, (c/. her let- ters in EveljTi's Diary, IV, 59, 62-64), her able but modest character, the similarity between the sentiments and tone of the verses and those of her later criticism of Dryden's Siege of Granada (ibid._, IV, S6-S7), and the presence of a poem by her husband in the same brief series, confirm the identification. «The Theatre Royal, at which Dryden's Wild Gallant had failed, 20 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA temporary Session of the Poets.*^ Among the authors pictured as suing to Apollo for the laureatesMp, Sam Tuke sat and formally smUed at the rest; But Apollo, who well did his vanity know, Call'd him to the bar to put him to the test. But his Muse was so stiff, she scarcely could go. She pleaded her age, desir'd a reward; It seems in her age she doated on praise; But Apollo resolv'd that such a bold bard Should never be grac'd with a per'wig of bays. His championship of Tuke brought Cowley also under the satirist's lash: Savoy-missing Cowley*^ came into the court. Making apologies for his bad play;*' Every one gave him so good a report, That Apollo gave heed to all he could say. Nor would he have had, 'tis thought, a rebuke. Unless he had done some notable folly; Writ verses unjustly in praise of Sam Tuke, Or printed his pitiful melancholy." In general connection with the animated discussion of his play, it may be noted that Tuke received marked evidence of royal favor. On March 3, 1663-4, he was knighted, and on the 31st of the same month was created baronet. These honors foreran his marrying, although he must have been nearly fifty years of age, a lady, "kinsman to my Lord Arundel of War- dour."** Lord Arundell was Master of the Horse to the Queen "The origin of these verses is obscure. As Sir John Suckling died in 1642, they cannot be his, as sometimes alleged (Dictionary of National Biography under "Cowley;" Davenant's Works (ed. Majdment-Logan), IV, 7; Emma A. Yarnall, Abraham Cowley). Neither are the verses to be confounded with Rochester's "Trial of the Poets for the B ayes," of ten re- ferred to as his "Session of the Poets." Scott dates them as "about 1670" (Scott-Sajntsbury Dryden, I, 68), but the quoted stanzas on Cowley must have been written between Tuke's folio of 1663 and Cowley's death in 1667. ^ Cowley had appUed unsuccessfully for the mastership of the Savoy. *• The Cutter of Coleman Street. " See his poem. The Complaint, printed in 1663. •* Evelyn, Diary, under date of the wedding, June 3, 1664. tuke's adventures op five hours 21 Mother, Henrietta Maria; and the ceremony was performed by "the Queenes Lord Ahnoner L. Aubignie in St. James's chapell." And to anticipate somewhat, it may be added that the King and Lord Arundell and the Countess of Huntingdon acted as godparents at the baptism of Tuke's only child (though by a second wife) on August 19, 1671. Finally, Dryden's Essay of Dramatic Poesy (written during his stay at Charlton in 1665-66 and pubhshed in 1668) contains several references to Tuke's play, two of which seem to imply that it had been popularly accepted as the type of its class. "But of late years," he says, "MoUere, the younger Corneille, Quinault, and some others, have been imitating afar off the quick turns and graces of the EngUsh stage .... Most of their new plays are, Uke some of oiurs, derived from the Spanish novels. There is scarce one of them without a veil, and a trusty Diego, who drolls much after the rate of the 'Ad- ventures.' "« Again, considerably later in the Essay, in illustrating the absurdities into which French poets are forced by their at- tempted observance of the unity of place, he says: "After this, the father enters to the daughter, and now the scene is in a house: for he is seeking from one room to another for [this ser- vant,] this poor PhiKpin, or French Diego, who is heard from within, drolling and breaking many a conceit on the subject of his miserable condition."^" Here, it will be noted, Dryden takes it for granted that his readers will easily recognize the "Diego" thus obscurely alluded to. Again, during the course of his Examen of Jonson's The Silent Woman, Dryden observes: "To begin first with the length of the action. . . It is all included within the limits of three hours and a half, which is no more than is required for the presentment on the stage: a beauty perhaps not much observed; if it had, we should not have looked on the Spanish translation of 'Five Hours' with so much wonder."^^ « Dryden (Scott-Saintsbuiy ed.), XV, 330-331. The italics are mine. ^'JM., XV, 340-341. The italics are mine. "/JjJ., XV, 348. 22 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA And lastly, in defending rhyme Dryden thus pays his re- spects to Tuke:^'' "Is there anything in rhyme more constrained than this line in blank verse? — I heaven invoke, and strong resistance make;'' where you see both the clauses are placed unnaturally; that is, contrary to the common way of speaking, and that without the excuse of a rhyme to cause it : yet you would think me very ridiculous, if I should accuse the stubbornness of blank verse, and not rather the stiffness of the poet." These four allusions^ to Tuke's play are particularly note- worthy because in the Essay Dryden carefully avoids criticism of other plays by Restoration authors. His only other men- tion of such is found in a piece of special pleading in behalf of the use of rhyme in plays, when he makes a complimentary reference to The Siege of Rhodes, Mustapha, The Indian Queen, and The Indian Emperor, in the writing of the latter two of which he had himself taken part. These allusions of Dryden complete a hst of references to Tuke from friends and enemies which it would probably be impossible to parallel in the case of any other Restoration drama written before 1665, with the possible exception of The Siege of Rhodes. III. The Significance of the Play. The Spanish source of The Adventures. — ^Tuke's play the earliest "Span- ish Plot" of the Restoration period. — Extent of influence of Spanish drama upon Restoration drama. — The Adventures in connection with the Unity of Time. — "Heroic" elements in Tuke's version of the plot. — History of the use of the couplet in Restoration drama before The Indian, Queen. The significance of The Adventures of Five Hours, viewed from an historical pomt of view, is threefold: First and chiefly, it '!> Dryden (Scott-Saintsbury ed.),XV, 362. ^^ Adventures of Five Hours, Act I, line 302. But Dryden carefully re- frains from mentioning Tuke by name. " For two or three other possible allusions to Tuke by Dryden, see page 50, note 5, and page 53, note 11; and for an explicit reference to' The Ad- ventures by Sir Robert Howard, see page 49. tuke's adventures of five hours 23 appears to have been the first of the group of Restoration trans- lations from the Spanish drama. Second, in the early Restora- tion period and for a number of years afterward, it was the recognized English exemplar of the neo-classic canon of unity of time. Third, in several respects it shows traits of the "heroic play," a point of minor importance but, on account of its early date, January, 1662-3, not neghgible. These points must now be examined in some detail. I. The Adventures of Five Hours is an adaptation of Los Empenos de Sets Horas,^ a comedy then attributed to Calderon, but since assigned^ to Antonio Coello, a courtier and dramatist of the time of PhiUp IV. From internal evidence that comedy appears to have been written shortly after 1632, the date of the capture of Maestricht by the Prince of Orange.' The in- trigue of the Spanish play may be thus summarized: Act I. Don Cesar porto Carrero has rescued a Spanish lady, Nise, from her Dutch captors, and after a brief interview, during which each falls in love with the other but in which he fails to learn her name, they are parted. Unable to trace her, he enters into an agreement with Don Enrique to marry Enrique's sister, Porcia. Porcia and Enrique are cousins of Nise and her brother Carlos. Porcia loves a young cavalier, Otavio, while Enrique loves Nise. As Enrique has accidentally witnessed an inter- view between Porcia and Otavio at Nise's home, he has been led to beUeve that Nise is engaged in an intrigue with Otavio. He has therefore with his friend, Don Diego, attacked Otavio, and in the struggle Otavio has ^The British Museum Catalogue erroneously calls it a translation of Calderon's El Escondido y la Tapada. ^ That the play is not Calderon's is practically certain. It is not named by him in his own list of his dramas {Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, CII, jdJ-xlii), and it heads the list of 106 compiled by his friend Vera Tasis as falsely assigned to Calderon through the cupidity of booksellers (ibid., VII, xxv). It is assigned to Coello by de la Barrera (Catdlogo . ... del teatro antiguo Espanol, 96), by Schaffer (jGeschichte des spanischen Nation- al dramas, II, 89), and by the catalogue to the Ticknor Collection in the Boston Public Library. J. Fitzmaurice-KeUy (Littirature espagnole, 345) mentions "Antonio Coello . . . qui 6crivit, parait il, Los Empenos de seis horas." * Cesar has a long speech (cf. The Adventures, II, 117-254), the language and tone of which would seem to indicate that it was written soon after that event. 24 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA killed Don Diego, and is consequently in hiding. On this highly compli- cated situation, with Enrique in love with Nise, Nise in love with Don Cesar, Don Cesar approaching to marry the hitherto unseen Porcia, Por- cia in love with Otavio, and Otavio in hiding from Enrique and the law, the curtain rises. Upon learning from Enrique of Don Cesar's approach and identity, Porcia and Nise resolve to prevent the marriage from taking place. Through the casual borrowing by Porcia of Nise's mantilla, Don Cesar's servant, Amesto, mistakes Nise for Don Cesar's betrothed, and the ladies encourage him in the error. The scene shifts to another part of the town. Don Cesar meets his old friend Otavio at the moment when Otavio receives Porcia's summons to come immediately to her (and Enrique's) garden. Upon learning that the summons is one involving danger, Don Cesar offers to accompany Otavio, and the two enter into a solemn compact of mutual defense, Cesar promising to be on Otavio's side "even if it should be against myself." Act n. Attacked in the garden by Enrique and Nise's brother Carlos, Otavio and Cesar make off with Porcia. Through a mistake of Quatrin, Otavio's servant and the gracioso of the play, Enrique and Carlos learn of Otavio's whereabouts, and Nise despatches Flora, Porcia's maid, to warn Porcia and Otavio of their coming attack. Meanwhile Don Cesar, behev- ing Otavio and Porcia safe and quite unaware of whose garden he has en- tered and of what lady he has helped to abduct, leaves the two lovers and, entering by the front entrance of Enrique's house, meets Nise. He is informed by his servant Amesto that Nise is his betrothed, and is overjoyed to find in her the lady whom he had rescued in Flanders. On his later ex- pressing his delight in his bride to Enrique, the latter is amazed to learn that Porcia is apparently still in the house. Enrique is obliged to hurry out, however, to take part in the attack against Otavio. The scene shifts to Otavio's house. Otavio has learned from Quatrin's belated confession that his whereabouts has been ascertained by Carlos, and sallies forth to find a chair in which Porcia may be safely borne to an- other retreat. In his absence Cesar returns, and being present when Flora enters with news of this coming attack, he offers to conduct Porcia to the abode of his own wife, and she is thus unwittingly borne back to her own home. Otavio, returning as Carlos and officers enter to apprehend him, conceals himself in the chair and, being mistaken for Porcia, is handed over to her kinsman Carlos, who bears the supposed Porcia, together with Flora and Quatrin, to his (Carlos') home for safe-keeping. Act III. Don Cesar reintroduces Porcia, ignorant of her destination, into her own home, where she is brought face to face with her brother Enrique and her cousin Nise. Fearing lest Enrique may kill her for having sullied the family honor, she resolves with Nise to escape with Nise to TUKE's adventures of riVE HOXJRS 25 Nise's {i.e., Carlos') home. MeanwhUe Carlos returns to the house of Enrique with the news that Porcia is (as he supposes) confined in his (Carlos') house. Enrique knows that she is at her own home; but when a servant brings word of a discovery that Otavio also is at Carlos' house, Carlos and Enrique rejoice that the assassin of Don Diego is at their mercy. Force of circumstances compels them to inform Don Cesar that they are about to avenge the family honor on an enemy, and he, boimd in the same close bonds of kinsh ip by his coming nuptials with Enrique's sister and ig- norant of the identity of the enemy, insists on accompanying them. The scene shifts to Carlos' house. Here Otavio, Quatrin, and Flora are amazed to encounter Porcia and Nise, who have fled from Porcia's home. When Cesar, Enrique, and Carlos arrive to despatch Otavio, the women and Quatrin hurriedly secrete themselves in the next room and Otavio advances to meet his fate. Cesar, however, recognizes Otavio, and the problem of the play confronts him. Shall he protect Otavio and thus be false to the sacred obligations of kinship? Or shall he assist Enrique and Carlos and thus violate his solemn compact with Otavio? The gravity of the situation is increased when he hears Otavio's avowal that Otavio loves Porcia, his own betrothed. Soon determining on his course of action, Cesar joins Otavio in driving Enrique and Carlos from the room, bolts the door, and then himself attacks Carlos in order to remove the stain from his own honor by lolling the lover of his bride. To save Otavio's life from Cesar, Porcia rushes from her hiding-place and readmits Enrique and Car- los. Cesar again turns in Otavio's defense, and Enrique and Carlos insist that Otavio shall marry Nise to save her honor (imperiled by Otavio's in- terviews with a woman at Nise's chamber window). Porcia and Nise in- tervene, risking death at the hands of their infuriated brothers. In the ensuing explanations it transpires that Cesar's supposed Porcia is really Nise, and that Otavio's interviews have been not with Nise, but with Porcia. Accordingly the two weddings are agreed upon (without consulting Enrique and Carlos), and the play abruptly ends. This complicated and ingenious plot Tuke remassed into five acts, incidentally making some few interpolations. He pre- fixed a preliminary scene* mainly between Henrique and Car- los, dwelling particularly upon the Spanish " Severity to Women" and the cruelty of marriage by proxy .^ He inserted a tame comedy scene appealing to his audiences' prejudices against the * Act I, 1-106. » Act I, 54r-73. 26 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA Dutch.« In the beginning of the fifth act/ amplifying a hint contained in the servant's report to Carlos in Los Empenos, he introduced a new scene, the purpose of which it is hard to discover, unless it was to show a pure woman hghting an ex- tinguished candle with her breath— a hazardous stage experi- ment. The conclusion of the fifth act was expanded to give certain explanations and to reconcile Henrique with the sub- stitution of Camilla for Porcia as Antonio's bride. A slender comic subplot in the shape of love passages between Diego (Quatrin) and Flora was also inserted. In general, however, Tuke preserved Coello's plot almost completely intact, even as to the arrangement of entrances, exits, and stage "business;" and the Spanish origin of the EngHsh tragicomedy was, as we have seen, one of its chief points of interest when it was first produced, In his public prologue to the first performance Tuke described it as "a Spanish plot," and in referring to the ingenuity of the compU- cation added, A Modest Man may praise what's not his own. Dryden a month later feared that the success of The Wild Gal- lant was "endangered by a Spanish plot," but asserted that his play "yields to Enghsh plays alone." Tuke's hostile critics seem to have made stock of the fact that the work was a mere translation, and attributed its success to the Spanish author rather than to Tuke, if we may judge from the very evident de- sire of the writers of the answering commendatory poems to minimize the Spanish element. Abraham Cowley, for instance, likens Tuke to a " Conqueror" who has « Act I, 397-471. Not to speak of the national rivalry in commerce and colonization, the Royalist audiences of the day were antagonistic to Hol- land's presbyterian faith, its republican form of government, and its alliance with France and enmity to Spain. Moreover, Charles II, for whom the play was avowedly written, had strong personal reasons for hating the Dutch burghers. 'Lines 1-49. tuke's adventures of five hours 27 Home to us in Triumph brought This Cargazon of Spain, with Treasures fraught; You have not basely gotten it by stealth, Nor by Translation borrow'd all its Wealth; But by a powerfuU Spirit made it your own; MetaU before, Money by you 'tis grown; .... W have seen how well you forein Oar refine; Produce the Gold of your own Nobler Mine. The World .... shall watch the Travels of your Pen, And Spain on you shall make Reprisals then. Dryden in the Essay of Dramatic Poesy twice mentions The Adventures as of Spanish origin; and John Evelyn, revising his Diary so much later that his faihng memory confused Samuel Tuke with George, yet apparently clearly recollected the chief point of the controversy and noted that "the plot was incomparable but the language stifFe and formal." The statement has frequently been made that the influence of the Spanish drama upon Restoration comedy was consider- able. Scott, for instance, says that the English preferred "the Spanish comedy, with its bustle, machinery, disguise, and complicated intrigue," its "adventures, surprises, rencounters, mistakes, disguises, and escapes, all easily accompUshed by the intervention of shding panels, closets, veils, masques, large cloaks, and dark lanthorns."^ And with regard to the chief literary figure of the Restoration period, Mr. Gosse observes that Dryden "had immense Uterary skill and adroitness, and he concentrated these quaUties on the production of comedies on the Spanish plan."' It is very probable, however, that the direct influence of the Spanish upon the Restoration stage has been distinctly exaggerated. A careful comparative study of the dramas of the periods of Calderon and Dryden respectively remains still to be made; but it is certain that comparatively little direct influence has as yet been clearly indicated. Of the ' Scott-Saintsbury ed. of Dryden, I, 62-3. On the subject see also Ward, History of English Dramatic Literature, III, 305, 306 and note; Saints- bury, A Short History of English Liter attire, 484; Garnett, The Age of Dry- den, 182-3; Traill, Social England, IV, 434. " History of Eighteenth Century Literature, 45. 28 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA various plays of the period listed by Professor Ward as based directly or indirectly upon Spanish plays, eleven were written by 1669, and a twelfth probably in 1671, while two, and pos- sibly five, more are scattered through the succeeding forty- three years.i" Of those occurring by 1669, five are Restora- tion plays based directly upon Spanish originals; two are pre- Restoration plays, one revived in the Restoration period and one not known ever to have been produced; of one the Spanish source is merely h)rpothetical; one or two may be imitations of the Spanish style; and one is partly based upon the Spanish indirectly because that happens to be the source of its Frendi original. Ranged in order of date of earliest known or sur- mised Restoration performance or of pubUcation, these plays are as follows: 1. Tuke's The Adventures of Five Hours, first produced Janu- ary 8, 1662-3. Its Spanish origin was referred to in the pro- logue and epilogue to the first performance in a tone indicating that this was a distinct novelty; was heavily emphasized by Dryden in the prologue to The Wild Gallant; was mentioned repeatedly in the eight commendatory poems that appeared in the edition of 1664; and was twice alluded to in Dryden's Essay of Dramatic Poesy in such terms as clearly to infer that the play had been popularly accepted as the typical "Spanish plot" of the day. It was very successful in production, led to con- troversy, and was pubhshed in 1663 and again in 1664. 2. Dryden's The Wild Gallant, first produced February 5, 1662-3. It is not a translation from the Spanish, as has been hitherto supposed, but is nevertheless not original with Dry- den, bemg based apparently upon an EngUsh source." It is non-extant in the form in which it failed in 1662-3, but is pre- served in the considerably ampHfied^^ and revised form in which At finally succeeded in 1669. 1" History of EngUsh Dramatic Literature, III, 304-6, 406, n. 2, and " See preface in Scott-Saintsbury ed., II, 27-28, and Dryden's prologue; also Ward, op. cit.. Ill, 346. '2 See Dryden's prologue to the 1669 version. tuke's adventures oe five hours 29 3. Dryden's The Rival Ladies, produced late in 1663. This some authorities^' assert to be a translation of a Spanish play, Professor Saintsbury even characterizing it as "imitating closely the tangled and improbable plot of its Spanish original." But no such Spanish original has ever been pointed out, and with the removal of The Wild Gallant from the list of Spanish translations there remains no proof that Dryden had a reading knowledge of Spanish, while there is considerable negative evi- dence that he did not. If The Rival Ladies is an imitation of the Spanish style, then almost certainly Dryden in this, his second play, is profiting by the lesson of the failure of The Wild Gallant and the success of The Adventures of Five Hours and of such other Restoration "Spanish plots" as may have al- ready appeared. 4. Digby's Worse and Worse, seen by Pepys on July 25, 1664. . The play is non-extant, but is surmised by Ticknor" to be based on Calderon's Peor Esta que Estaba. 5. Thomas KiUigrew's The Parson's Wedding, first written in 1640 and revived in 1664, being seen by Pepys on October 11 of that year. It is based upon Calderon's Dama Duende, and possibly its revival may have some significance in connection with the Spanish interest, although its chief attraction at the day seems to have lain in its ribaldry. 6. Digby's 'Tis Better than it was, stated by Downes" to have been produced at some time before the closing of the theatres on account of the plague in 1665. The play is non-extant, but is surmised by Ticknor" to have been a translation of Calderon's Mejor Esta que Estaba. 7. Elvira, probably by Digby, pubhshed in 1667. As the two preceding plays of Digby's were performed, this was probably also produced, but we have no record to that effect. It is "Saintsbury, Life of Dryden, 42; Ward, op. cit., HI, 347; Scott-Saints- bury ed. of Dryden, II, 127; Nicoll and Seccombe, A History of English Literature, 11, 487. ^* History of Spanish Literature, ed. 1864, II, 392, n. 2. ^^Roscius Anglicanus, 26. iWp.cit.,!!, 392, n. 2. 30 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA based upon Calderon's No Siempre lo Peor es Cierto}'' Digby's return from exile took place on July 29, 1667, and he was im- mediately restored to high favor^* with the King, a fact with which the date of publication has perhaps some connection. 8. Sir Thomas St. Serfe's Tarugo's Wiles, or the Cofee-House, based'* on Moreto's No puede ser, and dated to the year 1668. 9. Dryden's An Evening's Love, or the Mock Astrologer, pro- duced in 1668. It is after Corneille's Le Feint Astrologue (which is a version of Calderon's El Astrdlogo Fingido), with a scene based upon MoUere's Le Depit Amoureux.^" It represents French influence rather than Spanish. 10. The Earl of Orrery's Guzman, a five-act prose comedy seen by Pepys April 16, 1669, though not printed until 1693, many years after the author's death. Ward believes that "its plot and style .... point to some Spanish source."*' Whether a translation or original, it is. probable that this. Or- rery's sole attempt at comedy, is an experiment with the de- velopment of a "Spanish plot." 11. Sir Richard Fanshawe's version of Mendoza's Querer por solo querer, published in 1671. This was translated in 1654 while Fanshawe was a Parliamentary prisoner on bail at Tank- ersley Park, Yorkshire, and in London. There is no record of its ever having been acted; and Fanshawe's almost continuous presence at Lisljon as Enghsh ambassador from shortly after May 8, 1661 (a date before the writing of plays for production became an aristocratic amusement under Charles II) until his recall and immediately ensuing death in Spain in 1666, makes any such performance very improbable.^^ 12. William Wycherley's The Gentleman Dancing Master, first produced in 1672, the similarity of the main intrigue and I'Ticknor, ibid. " Pepys, Diary, VII, 196, 199. 1= Ward, ni, 406, n. 2. 2» Saintsbury, John Dryden, 44; Ward, III, 406, n. 2. "0#. ci<., Ill, 345. '2 See Dictionary of National Biography under his name. tttke's adventxtres or five hours 31 climax of which to Calderon's El Maestro de Danzar is entirely too close to be accidental. The fact that all three of Wycher- ley's other comedies show striking parallels to plays of Mo- liere well illustrates the general tendency of Spanish dramatic influence in the Restoration period to disappear before that of France. To glance rapidly over the list of other plays that have been referred by Dr. Ward to known or possible Spanish influence, Mrs. Aphra Behn's The Dutch Lover (1673) is said to be founded on a Spanish romance, Don Fenise,^^ and its object, according to Siegel,^^ is primarily to ridicule its Dutch hero, England hav- ing declared war against Holland in 1672. Her The Rover, Parts I (1677) and II (1681), are derived from Killigrew's pre- Restoration drama, Thomaso the Wanderer. John Leanerd's The Counterfeits (1679) is from a Spanish novel entitled The Trepanner Trepanned. Mrs. Behn's The False Count (1682) is "of Spanish type." Crowne's Sir Courtly Nice (1685) is from Moreto's No puede ser, and was written at the direct request of Charles II. Colley Gibber's She Would and She Would Not (1703) is based upon Leanerd's The Counterfeits. Steele's The Lying Lover (1703) owes only so much to the Spanish of Alar- con's Verdad Sospechosa as is present in its direct source, Cor- neille's Le Menteur. Mrs. Centlivre's The Perplexed Lovers (1712) as to "most of its plot" is "avowedly taken from a Spanish play;" and her The Stolen Heiress, or The Salamanca Doctor Outwitted (1702) and The Wonder (1714) are "very prob- ably derived from Spanish originals."" It is a striking fact, as appears from the above hst, that in the thirty years following 1672 the only English play known to have been founded di- rectly upon a Spanish drama is that of Crowne (1685), which was made, not spontaneously, but by direct request of the King; and that we then reach 1712 before finding another "Langbaine, 19. '* Aphra Bekns Geiichle und Prosawerke, in Anglia, XXV, 99. 26 Above details generally from Ward, passim, and the Dictionary of National Biography. 32 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA play positively known to have been translated from a Spanish comedia. The above cited facts seem to point pretty clearjy^to the following conclusions: Tuke's play was the earliist^f the so- called "Spanish plots" of the Restoration period. Its success opened the way for other translations and possibly imitations in the immediately ensuing years. Of these the only ones known to us are the three by Digby (of which only Elvira is extant), St. Serfe's Tarugo's Wiles, and Orrery's Guzman. The revival of Killigrew's The Parson's Wedding may perhaps be due to the same cause. Not only is Dryden's The Wild Gal- lant not a translation from the Spanish, but in the lost 1663 version it can scarcely have been intended as an imitation of the Spanish style, as it was staged only twenty-eight days after the first performance of The Adventures and, if composed at the deliberate rate of speed usual with Dryden, must have been practically completed before it could have felt Tuke's influence. It is probable that Dryden's The Rival Ladies (1664) is an imi- tation of the Spanish style, but within two years he was declar- ing in the Essay of Dramatic Poesy that "by pursuing closely one argument .... the French have gained .... leisure .... to represent the passions .... without being hurried from one thing to another, as we are in the plays of Calderon, which we have seen lately upon our theatres under the name of Spanish plots," and that "there is not above one good play to be writ upon all those plots. They are too much alike to please often; which we need not [adduce] the experience of our own stage to justify."^^ In general, the wave of interest in Spanish drama inaugurated by The Adven- tures of Five Hours in 1662 was at its height between 1663 and 1669, and seems to have completely subsided, not only among audiences but also among dramatists, after the date of Wych- erley's The Gentleman Dancing Master, 1671.^' 2» Arber's English Garner, III, 533, 541. The italics are mine. " With this view compare the more extreme statement of Mr. M. A. S. Hume in his Spanish Influence on English Literature, 291. tuke's adventures of five hours 33 II. At the time of first production of The Adventures of Five Hours, probably no feature of the play attracted greater atten- tion than its observance of the unities of time and (less strictly) of place. The doctrine of these two unities, the first empha- sized and the second invented by the sixteenth century Italian commentators upon Aristotle, had affected earlier English criticism in Sidney and earlier English drama in several works of Jonson. But Elizabethan criticism counted for little with the men of the Restoration and the significance of Jonson in this respect had in 1663 not yet been pointed out by Dryden. Shortly after 1550 the doctrine of the unities had found its way into France, had been largely followed in practice in French drama after 1634, and in 1659 had found emphatic expression in Pierre Corneille's essay on Les Trots UniMs. It was from France that the English Restoration audiences de- rived their knowledge of the critical theory in question, and it is therefore decidedly curious that the earliest Restoration drama following the theory should be drawn from the Spanish. What makes it more curious is the fact that this feature, con- spicuous in Los Empenos, stamps that play as peculiar in the Spanish drama itself. As a rule, neither Lope de Vega nor Calderon attempted to confine the time of dramatic action within any dogmatically estabhshed limits. But Los Empenos not only emphasized in its title the fact that it represents "the pledges of six horns," but by frequent allusions lets the audi- ence know that the first act is supposed to begin at six o'clock and to end at eight, the second act to end at half-past ten, and the third at twelve. Tuke, probably ambitious for originality, after shifting the imagined time of the first act an hour later, named his adaptation "The Adventures of Five Hours," and in this form it went before the English public. As we have seen, Tuke called especial attention in the prologue to its ob- servance of the unity of time, and in the epilogue both to the matter of the unity of time and to the narrow limits of its sphere of action. The fact that it was "all possible . . . . to be done in the time" was one of the elements earning Pepys' 34 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA admiration, and Dryden in the Essay of Dramatic Poesy de- clared that Jonson's The Silent Woman is all included within a time "no more than is required for its presentment on the stage: a beauty perhaps not much observed; if it had, we should not have looked on the Spanish translation of 'Five Hours' with so much wonder."^^ Moreover, its fame in this respect was more than temporary, for in 1691 (a year in which Anthony a Wood was still referring to it as "that celebrated Trag. Com."^'). Langbaine calls it "One of the best Plays now extant for Oeconomy and Contrivance;"'" and three years later Laurence Eachard, in his preface to Terence's Comedies Made English, discusses it as follows:'' The last objection [of the EngUsh to the rules of the ancients] is more particular: They say, That the Unities of Action, Time, and Place must needs take off from the great variety of the Plot, and a fine Story by this means will be quite murder'd But this Objection may yet better be answer'd by instances; and first, for the Unity of Time, we may mention the Play called. The Adventures of Five Hours; the whole Action lasting no longer (much less a Day, the extent aUow'd for a Dramatick Poem) yet this is one of the pleasantest Stories, that ever appear'd upon our Stage, and has as much Variety of Plots and Intrigues, without any- thing being precipitated, improper or unnatural, as to the main Action; so by this it appears, that this Rule is no Spoiler or Murderer of a Fine Story.52 Apparently it was largely owing to this encomium by Each- ard'' that Thomas Hull made from Tuke's Adventures an adap- tation entitled The Perplexities, which was staged at Covent Garden on January 31, 1767, "acted about ten times," and printed later in the same year.'* Thus the influence of Tuke's 2« Scott-Saintsbury ed., XV, 348. ^^ Athenae Oxonienses, II, 802. '" Accouni of the EngUsh Dramatic Poets, 505. '' Pp. xv-xvi of the seventh edition (1/29), the earliest to which I have access. 3" Three years later Herod was out-Heroded. John Dennis published A Plot and No Plot (1697), in the preface to which he called attention to the fact that the action took place inside oifour hours. '' See Hull's Advertisement to the play. '^ See Genest, V, 132, 134; also The English Drama (1818), II. I regret that limitations of space will not permit me to discuss the relation of The Perplexities to The Adventures. TtJKE S ADVENTTTRES OF FIVE HOURS 35 play in this respect was carried down well past the middle of the eighteenth century. III. In an article upon The Rise of the Heroic Pla-f^ Dr. Clarence G. Child thus refers to The Adventures of Five Hours: "It is somewhat surprising, considering its source, to find that it contains indubitable heroic elements, and even frequent use of rhjmie I have seen only the edition of 1712 . . . . Though I was not able to compare the later edition revised in the heyday of the heroic period, with the first edition of 1663, it seems worth while to indicate here the possi- bility that Tuke anticipated Orrery and Dryden." As Dry- den himself ascribes the origin of the "heroic play" to the two parts of The Siege of Rhodes (1656 and 1661), the question is not of prime importance; yet it is nevertheless true that cer- tain elements in The Adventures, derived partly from its Span- ish original and partly from Tuke, must have reinforced the other influences that were to lead, in the next two years, to The Indian Queen, The Indian Emperor, and Mustapha, the earliest dated instances of the "heroic play" proper. These elements we must now review, incidentally mentioning certain other respects in which Tuke departs from his original. (1) The climactic problem in Los Empenos dealt with a com- plex problem of honor, — the honor of the pledged word in an- tagonism with the honor engendered by obligations of kin- ship, the two further compUcated by the strictly individual honor springing from Cesar's relation to his betrothed. The element of love per se plays but small part in it. But with Tuke the problem is resolved into the terms of love and honor as understood in the preceding drama of Fletcher, CarUell, and the earlier work of Davenant, and as they later became "the shibboleth and structural formula of the heroic play."'* In '^Modern Language Notes, XIX (1904), 166-173. ^ Child, op. cit., p. 170. Cf. L. N. Chase, The English Heroic Play, 112-128; J. W. Tupper, Tlie Relations of the Heroic Play to the Romances oj Beaumont and Fletcher, in Publications of the Modern Language Associa- tion, XX, 615-616; P. Holzhausen's Drydens heroisches Drama, in Englischt Studien, XIII, 414-445; F. E. Schelling, Elizabethan Drama, 1558-1642, II, 349. 36 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA Tuke's treatment the Spanish honor of Unship receives little emphasis. At the crisis of the climactic scene Henrique ex- claims, What pause is this, Antonio? all your Fervour In the Concernments of your Friend, reduc'd To a tame Parly with our Enimy?" Moreover, with Tuke the honor is of a less occasional nature than in the Spanish in that Antonio's obligation to Octavio is not heightened by a special solemn pledge as is Cesar's, but springs solely from the general "Laws of Honor," to which Tuke several times refers, and which occur, though infre- quently, in the later heroic play.'^ On the other hand, the love element in the problem is heightened. On hearing Oc- tavio's avowal of love for Porcia, Antonio cries, O Heavens! what's that I hear? thou blessed Angel Guardian of Honor, I do now implore Thy powerful assistance .... it must ne'r be said That Passion [i.e., love] made Antonio recede From the strict Rules of Honor. Yet even in Los Empenos the pure love-and-honor conflict ap- pears in subsidiary relations, and is accurately reproduced in The Adventures. ^^ (2) As to characterization, the dramatis personae of the cloak-and-sword comedia, Los Empenos, are (with the exception of the gracioso, Quatrin) gentlemen and ladies generally imdif- ferentiated as individuals. Don Cesar, structurally central, is the conventional hero of Spanish drama, ardently rhetorical in love and bound by the Spanish code of dramatic morals, but only to a small extent the "hero super-sensitive" of the heroic play. Tuke, converting him into Don Antonio Pimentel, heightened him to a point much nearer the heroic ideal. He " Act V, lines 459-61; cf. also lines 444r4S. The italics are mine. '' Chase, op. cit., 122-23. The following quotation is from Adventures, V, 512-20; cf. also V, 550-51, 577-78. '»ActI, 356-7; H, 230-6. TUKE S ADVENTURES OF FIVE HOURS 37 becomes a man of "transcendent merit." His fame is well nigh universal. His character is without blemish. The au- thor evidently shares Camilla's view of his character: You may as well believe that Nature will Reverse the order of the whole Creation, As that Antonio, a Man, whose Soul Is of so strong, and perfect a Complexion, Should ere descend to such a slavish Sin^" as treachery to his betrothed. He is no "light o' love." Hav- ing become enamoured of one lady, he enters into an engage- ment of marriage with another only from despair at ever finding the first, concmrring with the "powerful perswasions" of his patron and "th' Importunity of Friends advice." Perhaps the most distinctly "heroic" touch occurs after his first meeting with Camilla, when rushing back into battle, Honor and Love Had so inflam'd my heart, that I advanc'd Beyond the Rules of Conduct, and receiv'd So many wounds, that I with faintness fell.^' Again, Tuke has made some few changes in plot and dialogue in order to alter the Spanish Nise into the playful but immacu- late Camilla. Modesty will not permit her to plan dehber- ately to reveal her love to Antonio, so that the dialogue is modified at the point where, in the Spanish, the two ladies frankly resolve to effect a transfer of Don Cesar from Porcia to Nise. Later, so "severely vertuous" is the young lady that she will not descend into the garden in search of Porcia lest she involve herself in "this unlucky Scandal." At the end of the play the only flaw that her brother can find in her is that she did not confide to him that Don Antonio was her gallant rescuer in Flanders. In her great but undescribed beauty, her capacity for love at first sight, her constancy to her lover, and her sedulous care for her reputation, she agrees with many of « Act IV, lines 556-60. « Act II, Unes 242-5. 38 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA the women of the later heroic play, but the "heroic" influence is most apparent in her narration of the scene in which, unHke the helpless Nise, she dramatically wounds her Dutch assail- ant with his own dagger, and firm of soul and statuesque in pose, threatens to end her life rather than lose her honor.^^ Two other characters were altered in Tuke's version. Hen- rique is newly conceived and emphasized rather after the fashion of Jonson, his "humor" being rage and lust of vengeance with an added touch of grotesque incapacity. His Wits are onely in his Choler quick And his Hand ready in Revenge; he's so Extravagantly Jealous, he distrusts The Meaning of his own ill-chosen Words, And so at length can hardly fix on any." « Act I, lines 300-325. For the heroic heroine see Chase, 80-97; Tup- per, 608-10. *> Act I, lines 496-500. We may here note certain other facts connecting Tuke with Ben Jonson, and especially with the play. Every Man Out oj Bis Humour. (1) The Horatian motto to the 1663 edition of The Adven- tures, Non ego Ventosae Plehis Su^ragia venor, had served as the last Hne of the £^7ogMe to Jonson's play. (2) In lines 4^11 of Tuke's 1663 E^og«e (quoted on pages 9-10), Tuke closely parallels a passage in Jonson's Induc- tion to the saiae play: 'Mitis What's his [the author's] scene? . . . . O, the Fortunate Island!' mass, he has bound himself to a strict law there . . • . He can not lightly alter the scene, without crossing the seas. Cordatus. He needs not, having a whole island to run through, I think. Mitis. No? how comes it then that in some one play we see so many seas, countries, and kingdoms, passed over with such acirjr- able dexterity? Cordatus. O, that but shows how well the authors can travel in their vocation, and outrun the apprehension of their auditory." (3) The "Characters," or brief descriptions added to the names of the dramatis personae in the 1671 edition of The Adventures, a "novelty" to which Tuke called especial attention, probably found its suggestion in the similar list of "The Characters of the Persons" prefixed by Jonson to Every Man out of His Humour. (4) This "novelty" Tuke defends in his 1671 Preface by an application of Jonson's theory of comedy, thus generalized: "Plays being Moral Pictures, their chiefest Perfections consist in the Force and Congruity of Passions and Humors, which are the Features and Com- plexion of our Minds." While both of the elements of this statement, the assumed essential didacticism of worthy stage art, and the methods of characterization, are commonplaces of Restoration criticism, yet the locus . classicus for both in Jonson, so far as concerns comedy, is again the Induc- tion to the same play. It should be added that in h^ characterization of Henrique, practically his only J'humour," Tuke, like Jonson, employs a temperamental bias, and not, like many Restoration dramatists, a mere superficial oddity of speech or behavior. TUKE S ADVENTURES OF FIVE HOURS 39 And Camilla's brother Carlos, originally almost as hot-headed as Henrique, in The Adventures becomes the cool temperate mentor of the latter and in chorus fashion comments on his folly. But only in the cases of Antonio and Camilla do the changes have any "heroic" significance. (3) In atmosphere the Spanish comedia is more rapid in ac- tion and much lighter in effect than is The Adventures. The comic spirit sometimes occurs even in the words of the princi- pal characters; while in Tuke's play the comedy is confined to the servants, and the serious sections are treated with a lofty, almost a painful, gravity — a distinctly "heroic" characteris- tic. Also gratifying to the Restoration taste were the Spanish scene and the dash of military background, with its hint of the pageantry of war.'** Almost no attempt was made at local color.^^ (4) Tuke's style is that of his age and based only to a very small extent on that of Los Empenos. He generally employs free paraphrase, although frequently reproducing the thought fairly closely and more rarely reproducing the Spanish sentence structure without strict adherence to the thought. He also usually breaks up the long Spanish speeches by the interjection of questions and comments by the other characters. Bearing in mind the general freedom with which he treats the sentence structure and diction of his original, we may glance at his more striking stylistic traits. (a) The "strained romantically-enthusiastic spirit of senti- ment and diction" characteristic of the heroic play reaches its height in Tuke in Act III, lines 377-422, where Don Antonio discovers that the lady whom he had met and loved in Flanders is, as he believes, identical with the lady whom he is to marry. At this point says Coello's hero: **Cf. Tupper, 587; Scheffing, II, 350. «C/. Chase, 157; alfco Schelling, II, 191-2, 205, 350. In the revision of 1671 Tuke inserted two Spanish phrases, but consistently replaced every original Signior by Sir. 40 STXTDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA Y si verdad pudo ser, dichas mi suerte derrama; pues juzgufi al perder la dama, la que al hallarla, es muger. Incierto perdf el plazer, y cierto le haU6 este dia; qu6 locura, 6 qu6 porffa es la de mi bien, que ordena que OS pierda yo, quando agena, y que os haUe, quando mla? . . . .* In the forty-line passage from which the above is an excerpt Tuke makes the language hyperbolic. Camilla is "a Vision," "that Miracle," "Bless'd Apparition," "Celestial Maid." That very Angel does once more appear, To whose divinity long since I raised An Altar in my Heart, where I have Offer'd The constant Sacrifice of Sighs and Vows Bliss above Faith must pass for an Illusion.*' But although the language of the lover is so heightened by Tuke, the bombast of the "heroic" conqueror is scarcely hinted. Its only occurrence worth quoting is Octavio's speech to Diego, after learning that their place of refuge has been discovered. Peace, cowardly Slave; having thus plaid the Rogue, Art thou Sententious grown? did I not Fear To Stain my Sword with such Base Blood, I'd let Thy Soul out with it at a thousand wounds.*' (6) The stylistic mannerisms common not only to the heroic play but more or less to late seventeenth century poetry in gen- *'"And if it could be true, my fate pours down good fortune, since I thought I had lost the lady who, when found, is my wife. I lost an im- certain pleasure, and I found it certain today; what madness or what per- sistence is that of my happiness which ordains that I should lose you when another's, and that I should find you when mine !" " Act III, lines 394-99. A similar but less highly marked inflation of Antonio's language occurs at I, 345-6, 358-60; II, 190-96, 207-13, 500- 504. « Act IV, lines 24-27. tuke's adventures of five hours 41 eral, occur in The Adventures. Such are antithesis, sometimes preserved from the Spanish, but more often original; apoph- thegms both in blank verse and in couplet form; the conceit; personification of abstractions; and classical allusion, usually mythological. These require no discussion. More significant than these, however, is the stichomythic couplet debate, al- ready employed in The Siege of Rhodes, and later to become al- most a mania with the Restoration dramatists. This occurs, with very little Spanish influence on subject matter and none at all on form, in the eighteen-line passage where Antonio in- sists on accompanying Octavio to Porcia's home.*' This man- nerism is closely connected with the question of metre. (5) Tuke generally translates the rapid tetrameters of Los Empenos into blank, verse, usually decasyllabic with occasional instances of mere syllable-counting and of short lines, loose in construction, with many run-on lines and with occasional wrenched accents. But of the 3048 lines in the 1663 edition, 124 (or 4.6%) are rhymed couplets. The proportion is small, but it must be noted that these are not mere isolated "tags" appearing at intervals. Much of the effect of the couplet form depends on iteration; that is, the impression on the ear is dis- proportionately heightened when several couplets appear con- secutively; and in seven distinct cases in the 1663 form of the play we find passages of from three to twelve distichs grouped together. In all, they contain 82 lines. Of these seven cases one is the stichomythic debate just referred to; two are sticho- mythic dialogue not in debate,*" the later of the two cases treat- ing pathetic subject matter; one*^ is the six-line couplet ending of a fourteen-line speech; one^^ is a six-line speech following the couplet-ending of a balanced stichomythic passage in blank verse; and two^ are monologues, the earlier pathetic, the latter tragic in import. Of the couplets standing singly or in twos, « Act II, lines 374-391. 6" Act 1, 134^3; IV, 77-84. " Act I, 205-10. "Act I, 481-88. "ActI, 99-106; V, 258-81. 42 STtJDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA a number are employed as endings for speeches or sections of scenes ("tags"); and eighteen are buried in speeches. In the couplets as a whole there is a strong tendency to antithesis, and a weaker yet well-defined tendency to balance. Sometimes the couplet form is employed to point apophthegms. The importance of the couplet form as an element in the heroic play is generally acknowledged." The question who was responsible for its introduction has received considerabledi^- cussion. Mr. Gosse^^ claims for Etherege that in his Cotri^ Revenge (acted in 1664) he was "the first to carry out the periment of writing ordinary plays in rhyme." Ignorin/ the couplets in The Siege of Rhodes because they were pro/bably sung or at least chanted, admitting our ignorance of the dates of Orrery's plays, remembering that Dryden's preceding at- tempts dealt with little more than a single scene, and interpret- ing the words "ordinary plays" as "spoken plays, original in the EngUsh," we may perhaps grant the point. But the his- tory of the introduction of the couplet would appear to be generally as follows: Assuming its "classical" balance and an- tithesis in some of the epigrams of Jonson,*' it passed down through Waller^' and entered the dramatic form, mingled with other metres, in Davenant's "opera," The Siege of Rhodes, in Sepember, 1656. In June, 1661,'* The Siege of Rhodes was re- vived on the opening of The Duke of York's Theatre in Lin- coln's Inn Fields; and not long after, the second part of The Siege of Rhodes was produced, a work of the same type. On January 8, 1663, Tuke's Adventures of Five Hours appeared, containing one stichomythic debate of eighteen lines and one rhymed monologue of twenty-four lines, so far as is known at present the earliest cases of sustained couplets spoken (not sung '*C/. especially Chase, cap. i. " Cornhill Magazine, XLIII, 286. " F. E. Schelling, Ben Jonson and the Classical School, in Publications of tlie Modern Language Association, XIII, 235-245. " For Waller's versification see H. C. Beeching, A Note upon Waller's Distich, in The Furnivall English Miscellany, 4-9. '* R. W. Lowe, Thomas Betterton, 83, correcting Downes. tuke's adventures of five hours 43 or chanted)'' on the Restoration stage. In the second week of February, 1663, there was produced in DubUn, and immediately- sent printed to London, Mrs. Katherine PhiUps' translation of Corneille's PompSe into English heroic couplets, one scene of which she had finished in August, 1662.*° At about the same time as the staging of Mrs. Philips' translation, there was com- pleted another version of the same play, also in couplets, ac- credited to Waller, Lord Buckhurst, Sir Charles Sedley, and Go- " With regard to The Siege of Rhodes two questions have been raised in this connection: (o) Was the "opera" sung throughout? (i) Was its re- vival at the Restoration in the form of an ordinary spoken play? The first question originates with Dr. Ward, who says (op. cit., Ill, 328), "The dialogue is partly in heroic couplets, partly in short rimed lines; the latter only can be supposed to have been given redtaiiw." But it must be pointed out that Davenant himself explains his variation in meters as intended to produce variety in singiag, though "in spoken dialogue it would be both unu- sual and unpleasant" (Maidinent-Logan ed. of Davenant, III, 235); and that in the original material of 1656, in the 1661 additions to the First Part, and in the whole of the Second Part (1661) long dialogue passages in pentam- eter couplets (certainly to be spoken without chanting if any passage in the play was so delivered) are studiedly interrupted by short lyric couplets or by a lyric interlinking of rhymes, a fact clearly indicating on Daven- ant's own authority that they were intended to be sung. The second ques- tion, whether The Siege of Rhodes was revived in 1661 as an ordinary spoken play, rests wholly upon the interpretation of Dryden's puzzling statement in his essay Of Heroic Plays (Scott-Saintsbury ed., IV, 19-20) : ' 'It being forbidden him [Davenant] ui the rebellious times to act tragedies and come- dies .... he was forced to ... . introduce the examples of moral virtue, writ in verse, and performed in recitative musiq In this condition did this part of his poetry remain at his Majesty's return; when, growing bolder, as being now owed by a public authority, he reviewed his 'Siege of Rhodes,' and caused it to be acted as a just drama." At first glance this would appear to mean that in the 1661 performances, and later, the singing was eliminated. But the metrical features above mentioned in the sections written in 1661, taken in combination with the evidence of Davenant's preface, seem conclusive upon this point also. This evidence is corroborated by Evelyn's statement that on January 9, 1661-2, he "saw acted 'The Third [i.e., Second — there was no Third] Part of the Siege of Rhodes'" and, that it was in "recitativa musiq." Moreover, when on February 3, 1662-3. Dryden himself declared that the popularity of the play-form that was 'one continued song" rendered the success of The Wild Gallant problematical, he can refer to nothing but The Siege of Rhodes, which was therefore not then being given as a spoken drama. In the face of this evidence I can come to no conclusion but that the words just drama are used in the sense acknowledged drama or legally authorized drama (or, in view of the crudeness of the production of 1656, perhaps even adequately staged drama), and that the early Restoration productions of The Siege of Rhodes were given in recitative throughout. '» Gosse, Seventeenth Century Stttdies, 248. 44 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA dolphin, and with which the names of Sir Edward FiUmore'' and of Tuke^^ have also been connected. By the date March 8, 1663, when Pepys saw a production of Heraclius, we are able to judge of the date of the play that was written in competi- tion with it, L'odowick Carliell's version of Corneille's Heraclius, translated entirely in rhymed pentameter.^' Toward the end of 1663 was performed Dryden's Rival Ladies, with its 100 lines of "amatory battledore and shuttlecock" of argumentative nature and in couplets,** beside a rhymed couplet masque and five shorter rhymed passages — in all, 178 lines. In his dedica- tion of this play to the Earl of Orrery in 1664, he advocates this "new way" of writing scenes in verse as being especially fitted for crucial scenes of "argumentation and discourse," and says of Orrery that he has "much better commended this way by writing in it, than I can do by writing for it."*^ Exactly how much of such writing Orrery had already done, and at what date, we do not know.** In the summer of 1664*' Ether- ege's Comical Revenge, or Love in a Tub was acted, the serious parts being wholly in couplets, the comedy in prose. Etherege does not mention the couplets as an innovation. Finally, January, 1664, saw the first performance of The Indian Queen, by Sir Robert Howard and Dryden, the first of the series of "heroic plays" written entirely in the couplet form. In this • "1 J6Ji., 2S1-2; Ward, op. cit., Ill, 315, n. 1. Act IV of Pompey Dry- den attributes to Lord Buckhurst (Arber's English Garner, III, 503). See also D. F. Canfield, Corneille and Racine in England. '2 "At the end of an edition of Sir John Denham's poems, 'printed by J. M. for H. Herringman,' 1684, is a catalogue of other works published by the same bookseller, and among them this entry: — 'By Samuel Tuke, and several persons of honour. Pompey.' " (Dodsley's Old English Plays (ed. 1876),, XV, 188.) But from his attitude both in 1663 and in 1671 it is very improbable that Tuke was concerned in any play other than The Adventures. " C. H. Gray, Lodowick Carliell, 41, n. 3; 46; 52-53. '* Act IV, sc. 1. The shorter passages wiU be found in Scott-Saintsbury ed., vol. II, pp. 156, 175, 177, 179-80, 187, 215. <^ Ed. cit., II, 134, 139. as Despite the claim that The Black Prince was the earliest of Orrery's plays in heroic couplets, it was not acted until October 19, 1667 (Pepys); whUe Henry the Fifth was staged on August 13, 1664 (Pepys); The General (if that be his) on September 28, 1664 (Pepys); and Mustapha on April 3, 1665 (Pepys), and perhaps as early as 1663 (Child, op. cit., 172-3). " Gosse, Seventeenth Century Studies, 235. tuke's adventures of five hours 45 respect, then, The Adventures of Five Hours stands as a notably early stage in the development of one of the chief traits of the heroic play. To summarize the "heroic" traits in The Adventures as it appeared in 1663, it derives from its Spanish original the love- and-honor problem iii subordinate relations and a problem chiefly concerned with honor in the crucial situation; a sUghtly heroic basis for the central character; a foreign scene and a slight hint of miHtary background; and a certain small amount of rhetorical antithesis. From Tuke himself came the strong emphasis on love and friendship in the crucial situation; a very considerable "heroic" heightening of Don Antonio and, to a less extent, of Camilla; a more rigid separation of the comic and the serious portions of the play, and an added gravity in the treatment of the latter; a hyperbolic treatment of the language of love and a suggestion of the "heroic" bombast in one speech of anger; considerable use of antithesis, with some balance; apophthegms; personifications; and a limited but interesting use of the rhymed couplet, especially significant in connection with stichomythic debate. Finally, it may be noted that, although the phrase "heroic play" had not yet become current, the term "heroic" was yet applied to The Adventures on its first appearance. In the com- mendatory verses that preceded the play in the edition of 1664 "MElpomene" says: Finding this Age does want that noble pride, For which brave men of old were deify'd; And that those persons who are nobly bom, Virtue, which made 'em so, do turn to scorn: .... In mere compassion to this wretched age You bring heroique Vertue on the stage. And Long reiterates the thought: The Work's Heroick; it redeems the Stage From flat and foul, whilst that reforms the Age. One feels in reading the words that the time of the fully crys- tallized "heroic play" is near at hand. 46 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA IV. The Revised Version of 1671 The revival of The Adventures in 1669— The Dryden-Howard contro- versy of 1664^1668.— Relation of Tuke's version of 1671 to the contro- versy. — ^Last shots in the Dryden-Tuke feud. — Relation of Tuke's revision to the "Heroic Play." In January, 1668-9, The Adventures of Five Hours was re- vived. This we know from Pepys, whose diary entry on the 27th of that month, ends as follows: "And there we dined, hav- ing but an ordinary dinner; and so, after dinner, she [his wife] and I, and Roger, and his mistress, to the Duke of York's playhouse, and there saw 'The Five Hours' Adventure,' which hath not been acted a good while before, but once, and is a most excellent ptlay, I must confess." Again at this time it was at least once presented at court, as appears from Pepys' entry of February 15, 1668-9. The little diarist tells us how, on the evening of that day (rather curiously, the same as that on which he had his sole interview with Tuke and found htm "I think, a little conceited, but a man of fine discourse as ever I heard almost"), he and his wife visited Whitehall, "and there, by means of Mr. Cooling, did get into the play, the only one we have seen [at court] this winter: it was 'The Five Hours' Ad- venture': but I sat so far I could not hear well, nor was there any pretty woman that I did see, but my wife, who sat in my Lady Fox's pew with her. The house was very full; and late before done, so that it was past eleven before we got home. But we were well pleased with seeing it." Certain considerations connect this revival with the appear- ance of a third edition of Tuke's play in 1671. This edition was an extensive revision of the original. It was in large quarto, with a title-page reading as follows: "THE / ADVENTURES /Of/ Five Houres: / A / TRAGI- COMEDY, / As it is ACTED / At His Royal Highness the Duke of YORK'S / THEATRE. / The Third Impression. / Revis'd and Corrected by the Author / Sir SAMUEL TUKE K*. and Bar*. / — Nonumque prematur in Annum. / Komt. de Art. tuke's adventures of five hours 47 Poet. / LONDON,/ Printed by T. N. for Henry Herringman, at the Sign of the Blew / Anchor, on the Lower Walk of the New Exchange. 1671." This edition omits the original dedication, prologues, and epilogues, and also the commendatory verses of 1664. A pref- ace (omitted in the copy belonging to the Harvard University Library) is followed by a new prologue and a new list of dra- matis personae, the latter extended, rearranged, and with brief characterizations attached to the more important names. There ensue one hundred pages of text, including a new epilogue. Various peculiarities in the spelling and punctuation, unneces- sary to specify here in full, are convincing evidence that the revision was the work of the author even in minute details, and that the compositor followed him closely and in places even uninteUigently. The revised edition of 1671 shows unmistakably the influ- ence upon Tuke both of Dryden's criticism and of the "heroic play" for the development of which Dryden was mainly re- sponsible. By the time of the 1669 revival of The Adventures Dryden had added to The Wild Gallant and The Rival Ladies six, and perhaps seven, other dramas, namely: — several "heroic plays," The Indian Queen (1664; written in collaboration with Sir Robert Howard), The Indian Emperor (1665), Secret Love, or the Maiden Queen (1667), and perhaps also Tyrannic Love, or the Royal Martyr (not printed until 1670); two comedies from the French, Sir Martin Mar- All, or The Feigned Inno- cence (1667?; an adaptation of the Duke of Newcastle's transla- tion of Moliere's L'Stourdi), and An Evening's Love, or The Mock Astrologer (1668; in part after Corneille's Le Feint Astrologue); and a mutilation of Shakespeare, The Tempest, or The Enchanted Island (1667?; written in collaboration with Davenant). In addition, in 1669 (perhaps in 1667^ he revised and success- fully produced The Wild Gallant, the play in which he had origi- ' On August 7, 1667, the play was entered on tlie Stationers' Register for publication, presumably in the revised form. (Malone, Prose Works of Dryden, I, i, 69.) 48 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA nally attacked Tuke and the first failure of which, it may be conjectured, Tuke had therefore not taken greatly to heart. Moreover, between 1664 and 1669 Dryden and his brother-in- law, Sir Robert Howard, had had the well-known controversy which is the most important critical event of its decade. This controversy centred about the two questions, (1) of the legiti- macy of the use of rhymed dialogue in serious drama, and (2) of the advisability of observing the "classic rules," especially the unities of time and place. So far as it concerns our sub- ject, the discussion ran the following course: Dryden prefixed to The Rival Ladies (published in 1664) a Dedicatory Epistle to the Earl of Orrery in which he advocated the use of rhymed dialogue in plays. Howard, in his preface to Four New Plays (1665), took occa- sion to comment on the respective merits of EngUsh, Latin, French, Italian, and Spanish plays, and opposed the use of rhymed dialogue as u'nnatural. During the plague of 1665-66, Dryden elaborated the notable Essay of Dramatic Poesy, a dialogue discussion of the respec- tive merits of ancient, French, and EngUsh drama, involving a treatment of "the rules," and defending rhyme in drama as "as natural, and more effectual than blank verse." Introduc- ing The Adventures of Five Hours for the first time into the controversy, he made four references and one possible allusion to it as we have aheady seen, the most striking of these pas- sages occurring in connection with the rniity of time: "[The action of Jonson's The Silent Woman] is all included in three hours and a half, which is no more than is required for present- ment on the stage; a beauty perhaps not so much observed; if it had, we should not have looked upon the Spanish translation of Five Hours with so much wonder." For some reason the Essay of Dramatic Poesy did not appear in print until after March 24, 1667-8. Later in 1668 Howard, in his preface to The Great Favorite, or The Duke of Lerma, rephed to Dryden's Essay, insisting on the unnaturalness of rhymed dialogue and den)dng that the "classic rules" for drama tuke's adventures of five hours 49 were founded upon reason. Attacking the conventional twenty- four-hour unity of time, he declared that it was "as impossible that five hours or four and twenty hours should be two hours and a half, as that a thousand hours or years should be less than what they are, or the greatest part of time be compre- hended in the less.'"' Still later in 1668 (before September 20, when Pepys read it), Dryden published A Defence of An Essay of Dramatic Poesy as preface to The Indian Emperor. Here, incidentally to answer- ing Howard at length, he pointed out that while the less time cannot actually comprehend the greater, it can mirror-Uke rep- resent it; he inquired whether the feigned business of twenty- four imagined hours may not be more naturally represented in the compass of three real hours, than the like feigned business of twenty-foiur years in the same "proportion" (oramoimt) of real time; and he declared that the thing to be sought was as close a "nearness of proportion between the imaginary and real time" as possible, wherefore he preferred The Silent Woman above aU other plays, since in that play the real and the im- aginary time were coextensive.' In his plays, too, Dryden had taken occasion to emphasize the doctrine of the unities. In his prologue to Secret Love (1667) he pointed out that He who writ this, (not without pains and thought) From French and English Theatres, has brought Th' exactest rules by which a play is wrought. The Unities of Action, Place and Time; The Scenes Unbroken; and a mingled chime Of Johnson's humour with Comeille's rhyme. And on the publication of the play in 1668 Dryden in his pref- ace reaffirmed that "it is regular according to the strictest of dramatic laws; but that is a commendation which many of * Vol. ni, p. 577, of Arber's English Garner, where the five papers of the controversy are conveniently reprinted. The italics are mine. ^Ihid., in, S9S-S97. 50 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA our poets now despise, and a beauty which our common audi- ences do not easily discern."* A number of considerations link together the controversy between Dryden and his brother-in-law, the revival of The Ad- ventures in January, 1668-9 (some four months only after the Dryden-Howard controversy had ended),. and the publication of Tuke's revised third edition in 1671. It may be admitted that our information is not so complete as might be desired. We do not know why the revised edition did not appear until two years after the revival; and we cannot be sure that a second revival did not occur in 1670 or 1671. Pepys' note that the play "hath not been acted a good while before, but once," also introduces an element of uncertainty. Nevertheless, the gen- eral course of events seems reasonably clear. Dryden had early ridiculed Tuke, as we have seen, in the prologue and epi- logue to The Wild Gallant, and probably also in the prologue to The Rival Ladies. In the Essay of Dramatic Poesy he had as- sumed a distinctly cavalier attitude toward the group of "Span- ish plots;" he had expressed the view that the very brief time- lapse in The Adventures was really nothing very remarkable; he had inserted a statement that might be construed as an innuendo against the fundamental construction of Tuke's play; and he had deliberately pilloried a line of Tuke's for its awk- ward double inversion, plainly calUng attention to "the stiff- ness of the poet."* Apparently, also, as we shall see, at least * Pepys, who saw the play on March 2, 1666-67, notes that it was "might- ily commended for the regularity of it." fThis may be a mere echo of the prologue, however.) In the same year Shadwell, in his preface to The Sullen Lovers, also says: "I have in this Play, as near as I could, observed the three Unities of Time, Place, and Action. The time of the drama does not exceed six hours [!]; the place is in a very narrow compass; .... I have here, as often as I could naturally, kept the Scenes imbroken, which, though it be not so much practised or so well understood by the English, yet among the French-Poets is accompted a great Beauty." (Spingam's ed. Critical Essays oj the Seventeenth Century, II, 148-9). 'In the dedication of The Rival Ladies Dryden had already written, "I know some, who, if they were to write in blank verse, Sir, I ask your par- don, would think it sounded more heroically to write, Sir, I your pardon ask." (Scott-Saintsbury ed., II, 129.) In the light of the otiier circumstances of the case, Tuke may also have taken offence at Uryden's statement, "There is no Theatre in the world has tuke's adventures of five hours 51 one other remark of Dryden's in the Essay Tuke took to him- self. Now within a period of ten months at most after the appearance of Dryden's Essay,^ during which time two other contributions to the controversy had appeared, Howard's con- taining a distinct reference to Tuke's title, the revival of Tuke's play occurred. Whether the controversy had stimulated pub- lic interest in that well-remembered exemplar of the imity of time, and it had been staged as soon as Sir Samuel could make the revision he desired; or whether Tuke, stung by what he considered a renewed attack on the part of Dryden in the Es- say, had of his own accord set to work at revision and pressed the play on to rehearsal and re-staging; or whether, after all, the closeness of the two dates is a mere coincidence — it is now impossible piositively to say. Certain it is, however, that the revision was based on a revival, and that this is the only revival near to 1671 of which we know. Certain it is, also, that Tuke revised with a keen eye on Dryden and his work, and that in various ways he endeavored to disarm further criticism. The new and dignified prologue, spoken by Betterton him- self, repairs the slight to a part of his audience, of the presence of which in the original epilogue Dryden had so effectively made capital. He now appeals to his hearers as Persons of the most exalted Sense, and asks that they consider well, the just respect Due to their [all authors'] Poems, when they are correct .... . . . . he [the author] has now compounded with Ambition For that more solid Greatness, Self-fruition. And going to embrace a civil Death, He's loath to die indebted to your Breath; .... anything so absurd as the English Tragi-Comedy .... Here, a course of mirth; there, another of sadness and passion; a third of honour; and the fourth, a duel. Thus, in two hours and a half, we run through all the fits of Bedlam." (lb., Ill, 531.) Tuke's play contains all the ele- ments cited. ' March 25, 1668, to January 27, 1668-9: — it was probably a considera- bly shorter period. 52 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA .... they who treat such Judges should excell, Here, 'tis to do ill, to do only well; He has, as other Writers have, good Will, And onely wants (like those) Nature and SkiU; But since he cannot reach th' envied Height, H' as cast some Grains in this to mend the Weight; And being to part w' you, prays you to accept This Reviv'd Piece, as Legacy, or Debt. In his epilogue, and in the same elegiac tone, the speaJcer comments upon the morahty of the play and indulges in a side thrust at the licentiousness and blasphemy of contem- porary dramatists: That's Bawdery, Which our Late Poets make their chiefest Tasks, As if they writ onely to th' Vizard-Masks.' . . Nor that Poetick Rage, which hectors Heaven, Your Writers Stile,' like's Temper's grown more even; And he's afraid to shock their tender Ears, Whose God, say they's the Fiction of their Fears; Your Morals, to no purpose. He reply'd Some Men talk'd idlely just before they dy'd. And yet we heard 'em with respect: 'Twas all he said. Well we may count him now, as good as dead: And since Ghosts have left walking, if you please, We'U let our Vertuous Poet rest in Peace. In the revised edition of 1671 Tuke substituted for the self- sufficient aristocratic motto of 1663, "Non ego Ventosae Plebis suffragia venor,"^ the more modest quotation, "Nonumque pre- matur in Annum, "i" The old prologue and epilogue were excluded. The new preface, which affects an air of gentle- manly negligence, is deliberately misleading. It is "something new that Trifles of this nature should have a Second Edition," but the revision was due to the fact that a lady had desired him to "make a Song and insert it." He had not cast his ' I.e., prostitutes. « 7.6., Tuke's. 'Horace: Epistolae, I, xix, 37. "Horace: De Arte Poetica, 388. tuke's adventtires or five hours 53 eyes upon this piece since it was first printed; and now, "find- ing there some very obvious Faults," he "could not well im- agine how they came to escape my last hand." He reafiirms the didactic purpose of the play; reiterates that "though the Author Converses with but few, he Writes to all;" and closes with an assurance to "Those who have been so angry with this Innocent Piece" that he "pretends not to any Royalty on the Mount of Parnassus" and that he "will sing no more, till he come into that Quire, where there is room enough for all; and such, he presumes, is the Good Breeding of these Critiques, that they wiU not be so unmannerly as to crowd him there." The preface carefully avoids all personal reference to Dry- den, and its whole tone would lead the reader to underestimate the extensiveness of the revision. This was quite sweeping; and a number of the changes point unmistakably to John Dry- den as the cause of the revision rather than to the lady to whom Tuke refers. Not only did Sir Samuel shift his attitude toward his audience, but he carefully smoothed out the inversions from about thirty fines, including the one that Dryden had publicly criticized. In several cases he recast lines to avoid the use of "unto," a word that Dryden had cited as one of the marks of an "ill poet,"" and perhaps for the same reason he efided "do," "does," and "did" in a score of instances.'^ Moreover, the marked increase of couplets, to be hereafter discussed, is per- haps to be ascribed as much to the part the question had played in the Dryden-Howard controversy as to the practice of Dryden and Orrery. One matter about which Tuke must have felt especially ner- vous, however, was the question of unity of time, which had originaUy contributed so much to the reputation of the play. "The "ill poet .... creeps along with ten little words in every line, and helps out his numbers with For to and Unto, and all the pretty expletives he can End, till he drags them to the end of another line." {_Es- say of Dramatic Poesy, in Arber's English Garner, III, 510.) '2 These forms were of course passing out of use as unemphatic aflfirma- tive auxiharies, but this alone will not account for the change. Only six years after first writing them Tuke cut out the great majority of these forms, in one case (I, S86) even substituting to avoid one in a negative verb! 54 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA Howard had said that The Adventures did not observe true unity of time at all, because the imaginary time exceeded the real time. Dryden, although he had said nothing in favor of Tuke's play, had advocated its underlying time-principle as correct, and had pointed to Jonson's Epicene, with its three- hour time-lapse, as ideal. Under the circumstances this feature would be more than ever a centre of interest — and possible criticism. Apparently Tuke deliberately attempted to dis- tract attention from it. In striking contrast to his original prologue and epilogue, his new prologue, epilogue, and preface are alike silent with regard to it, but all heavily emphasize Tuke's attitude as a "Vertuous Poet" presenting "Moral Pic- tures." Still, could the time-unity of the play be at all strength- ened? He had already shortened the six hoiu-s (6 to 12 p.m.) of his Spanish original to five hours (7 to 12 p.m.). He could not, if he would, still- further diminish them, for this would involve changing his now celebrated title. But apparently he conceived the idea that, by shifting his action from between seven and twelve to between six and eleven, he could create an illusion synchronizing the middle three acts of his play with the actual time of an evening cdurt performance and throwing Acts I and V into perspective, and that he could thus establish a nearer approach to that exact coextension of the imag- inary and real time, which Dryden had declared to be the ideal. The court performances must have begun at some time between seven and half-past seven (the exact time being in a measure dependent upon the arrival of the royal party), and were apparently over by ten or a little later.*' Now if Tuke "The basis for these statements is as followB: Under October 26, 1666, after seeing Etherege's Comical Revenge, Pepys noted, "The play done by ten o'clock." Of the Whitehall performance of Tuke's play, 1668-9, Pepys says, "Late before done, so that it was past eleven when we got home." Cf. also under February 22, 1668-9. These notes would fix the usual end of the performance as from 10 to perhaps 10.30. Now, in the controversial passages cited above, Howard, desiring to emphasize the shortness of the time of performance, declares it "two hours and a half-" and Dryden in his answer reduces his original "three hours and a half" (for the time of production of Epicene) to a generalized "three hours." Basing on these data, the hour of beginning a court performance was cer- tainly not usually later than half-past seven. Seven o'clock, modified by royal tardiness, is not improbable. ^ tuke's adventures of five hours 55 shifted the imaginary time of begimiing his action from seven to six o'clock, his first mention of time at (imaginary) seven o'clock at the end of the first act" would seem natural to the au- dience as roughly coinciding with the actual time of beginning the performance, and the antecedent dramatic events would be imaginatively thrust back in real time. The phrase ten a clock at IV, 59, would then become nine a clock, approximately the hour when the fourth act might be expected to begin. Naturally, at IV, 527, a back reference to the beginning of the play as Afternoon rather than Evening would deepen his per- spective. Finally, the reference to twelve a clock at the end of the performance (V, 770-772) must be wholly omitted, as eleven o'clock would be some hour later than he anticipated the play would come to a close. These changes Tuke certainly made; and the fact that the imaginary time of the play was shifted forward one hour seems to admit of no other explanation. Later, to complete here the story of the Dryden-Tuke feud, in Marriage d, la Mode Dryden answered Tuke's generalized charges of Ucentiousness with one more thrust at The Adven- tures and its author. Tuke, in his revision, had remodeled the beginning of the first act, giving to Henrique an opening soliloquy, How happy are the Men of easie Phlegm, Bom on the Confines of Indiflference; efc. In Marriage d la Mode, which was probably staged at some time between March 1, 1671-2, and May 14, 1672," Dryden again contrasted himself with Tuke, driving the allusion home by applying the awkwardly phrased lines of Hemique to Sir Samuel himself. Dryden's epilogue begins: " Instead of Eight as in (1663) I, 570. 16 The prologue indicates that the time was immediately after the com- bination of France and England against the Dutch in 1671-2. According to the entries in Evelyn's Diary, preparations for war began in Council about February 12, 1671-2; without declaration of war the English at- tacked and were repulsed by the Dutch convoy of the Smyrna fleet on March 12; the official review of the great EngUsh fleet raised to overwhelm ike Dutch was delayed from May 10 to May 14; and the great naval en- gagement of the war occurred on May 28. 56 STUDIES m ENGLISH DRAMA Thus have my spouse and I reformed the nation, And led you all the way to reformation; Not with dull morals, gravely writ, like those Which men oj easy pUegm with care compose — (Your poets with stiff words and limber sense, Born on the confines of indifferencei) But by examples drawn, I dare to say, From most of you who hear and see the play. As the force of such an allusion depends upon its timeliness, this would seem to indicate that Tuke's edition of 1671 ap- peared not much before March 24, 1671-2. In fact, it would even lend color to the hypothesis of a revival in 1671 upon which the revised edition was based. Be that as it may, Sir Samuel did not again appear in print, and two years later went to "rest in Peace." The alterations just referred to, however, form but a small proportion of the changes made in the revised edition.^* Many of these alterations are for rhetorical or metrical reasons; but in a number of cases there is in them a larger significance. To a certain extent they show the influence of the increasingly popu- lar "heroic play." Thus, the period of the play being pushed back from about 1632, the date of the Siege of Maestricht, and the rehef of JuHers, to that of the siege of Mons in 1572, the name of the hero, Don Antonio Pimentel, is changed to Don Antonio de Mendoza; that of his commander-in-chief, the his- torical Marquis de Velada, to the Duke of Alva; and that of his patron, formerly Velada, to Marquis d'Olivera. If the last name was suggested by that of the Count Duke de Olivarez, the chief power in Spain between 1621 and 1643, the three are all of distinguished connotation. Yet the last name of the hero occurs but four times; the Marquis d'OUvera is mentioned but three times; and the single reference to the Duke of Alva seems introduced chiefly to give an opportunity of offering a defense i« According to my analysis on the convenient basis of modem rhetoric, aside from the changes above referred to and innumerable alterations in mere speUing and punctuation, fifty lines or passages in the 1671 edition were revised for clearness, thirty-seven for force, eighty-one for ease, and eighty-seven for metrical reasons. tuke's adventures or five hours 57 for his quite indefensible barbarity to the Dutch. Even a single incidental allusion to Sir Francis Drake is conceived neither in a "heroic" vein nor in a patriotic spirit. These changes do not materially contribute to the dramatic effective- ness of the play. The part of Henrique has had the shght admixture of gro- tesquerie removed and has been made more dignified. A brief soliloquy gives an introductory exposition of his character, and repeatedly the bloodiness of his purpose is alluded to in soft- ened tone." So, too, occasional minor alterations add dignity to other characters. Antonio no longer "confesses" that there are Affronts so great, And heightned by such odious Circurastances, As do release us from the usual Forms Of Generous Revenge; and set us free To tak't on any Advantage.*' Octavio no longer suggests that when a fugitive in the sedan- chair he was "a poor Bird shut in a Cage," nor in a critical moment does he permit Porcia to leave him on the ground that her presence will increase his danger.^' And generally throughout the play the characters address each other in more polished language.^" The "heroic shibboleth" is repeated afresh in Octavio's words, I'l leave my Genius to inform the World, My Life and Death was uniform; as I Liv'd firm to Love and Honour, so I die;^' and again in Antonio's retort to Henrique — probably the most "heroic" Hues in the play — " Cf. HI, 63, 140, 197, 544; IV, 302, 328, 335, 414; V, 25, 221, 363, 426-9, 439; also the curious case at V, 200. Cf. wounded for slain at III, 282 18 Act V, 227-231. Cf. also II, 96, 97; V, 185, 620. '9 V, 20-23, 426-9. Cf. also IV, 273-4. "> I, 5-6, 527-9; III, 147, 172, 523, 525; IV, SO, 91, 472, 699; V, 8, 196, 203, 219, 282-3, 385, 657, 667, 683, 699-700. You is sometimes substituted for thou even when spoken under stress of emotion or to servants (II, 29; IV, 25, 216). » After V, 439. 58 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA My Honour, Sir, is so sublim'd by Love, 'Twill not admit Comparison or Rival.*' Finally, the number of rhymed couplets, including consider- able rhjoned couplet debate, has been considerably increased. Out of a total of 333 entirely new lines, 166 are in rhymed couplets. Thus the number of lines in couplets in the revised edition rises to 282, almost ten per cent of the total number of lines in the revised play. The original seven cases in which series of three or more couplets occur, in the second quarto have risen to eighteen. Prominent in the new material are a serious stichomythic couplet debate (20 lines), a stichomythic debate of serious couplets alternating with comic (22 lines), a non-stichomythic couplet debate (12 lines), two non-sticho- mythic couplet debates with intermingled unrhymed lines, and an epilogue (14 lines) distributed in couplets among the various members of the cast.^^ In conclusion we return to the query is this "a piece refash- ioned to suit a prevailing taste?" The answer is, only to a very limited extent. Tuke seems to have been actuated in his revision mainly by a desire to silence adverse criticism, es- pecially that of John Dryden, and to give a final poUsh to the work on which chiefly rested his claim to a place in the world of letters. V. SUMMASY To recapitulate, the following would appear to be the note- worthy facts with regard to The Adventures of Five Hours and the other questions touched on in this study: 1. The play is a free translation from the Spanish comedia, Los Empenos de Sets Horas, attributed to Don Antonio Coello and probably written shortly after 1632. The EngUsh ver- sion was made by Colonel (later Su:) Samuel Tuke. The as- signment of a share in the work to George Digby, Earl of Bris- « After V, 624. Cf. after IV, 111. "These passages are fomid respectively after IT, 91; V. 317- V 206- III, 260; IV, 71; and V, 774. . . ". tuke's adventures of five hours 59 tol, may be dismissed as resting upon a single unreliable state- ment and being opposed by a number of weighty considerations. 2. First produced on January 8, 1662-3, in the tentative period between the reopening of the theatres in 1660 and the earliest successes of Dryden and Etherege, the play became the literary sensation of the day. In several respects it antici- pated the leading features of immediately succeeding dramatic developments. 3. It was pretty certainly the first EngUsh translation of a Spanish play produced after the Restoration, and by its popu- larity inaugurated the series of " Spanish plots" upon the Restoration stage. So far as recent investigation shows, how- ever, this period of direct influence of Spanish drama upon Restoration drama lasted only about a decade. 4. Appearing not quite four years after Corneille's essay on the Unities, Tuke's play was immediately accepted as a re- markable case of observance of the Unity of Time, and seems to have been the stock example of it for many years. This, led to its being rewritten as a prose comedy, more than a century after Tuke's first version. . 5. Produced some eighteen months before the earliest of the "heroic plays" by Dryden, Howard, and the Earl of Orrery, The Adventures is not a "heroic play" — unless the "opera," The Siege of Rhodes, is to be so considered, there as yet was none. But it is equally true that it is not a mere comedia de capa y espada. Not only has its main intrigue been somewhat re- phrased in terms of the English love-and-honor conflict, but it treats that intrigue with "heroic" gravity, its hero has been given distinctly "heroic" traits, its language is frequently "heroically" heightened, and it occasionally uses the rhymed couplet and stichomythic debate; and the heightened "heroic" effect is in no way motivated, as is the case with The Siege of Rhodes, by the necessity for supplying a libretto suitable for musical embeUishment. That both Parts of The Siege of Rhodes were sung throughout in the performances from 1661 to Febru- 60 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA ary, 1662-3, seems certain from the joint evidence of the meter of Davenant, of Evelyn, and of Dryden.^ 6. Out of a circle of adverse critics of The Adventures emerges the figure of John Dry den, just on the threshold of his career as a dramatist. Both in satirical stage allusions and in formal criticism he commented on the crudities in The Adventures, and he attempted to make capital for himself out of Tuke's super- cilious attitude toward the general public; but he also recognized the trend of popular taste, and after the failure of The Wild Gallant (which we do not possess in its original form, and which was not a translation from the Spanish, as is generally sup- posed, and, it may be pretty certainly stated, not even an imitation of the Spanish), he wrote (in all probabiHty rather than adapted) a comedy of the Spanish type. The Rival Ladies. He also became the chief agent in the development of the "heroic play," being probably chiefly influenced by Davenant. Incidentally it may be noted that with the removal of The Wild Gallant, from the Hst of Spanish translations disappears the only reason of weight for believing that Dryden had a reading knowledge of Spanish; and it may be repeated that in the use of the rhymed couplet in plays Dryden was antici- pated not only by the sung Siege of Rhodes and by passages in The Adventures, but also by three complete translations in pentameter couplets from the French of Corneille. 7. A revival of The Adventures in 1669 was followed by the publication of a "revised and corrected" edition in 1671, which clearly attempts to render pointless Dryden's criticism of the play, and in which the reflex influence of the "heroic play" is discernible, mainly in a number of slight changes in character- ization and tone and in the insertion of several additional pas- sages of couplet debate. To Tuke's references (1671) to the ribaldry and blasphemy of contemporary dramatists Dryden (in Marriage d la Mode, 1672) made a contemptuous retort concerning Tuke's "dull morals," "stiff words," and "limber sense." ' See page 43, note 59. tuke's adventukes of five hours 61 8. After being revived at the Haymarket Theatre on Febru- ary 3, 1701,^ and at Drury Lane on October 9, 1727,' The Adven- tures was recast as a prose comedy, The Perplexities, by Thomas Hull and in that shape staged at Covent Garden on January 31, 1767.^ Though limitations of space have prevented a full discussion, it may be said that the sequence of the Spanish cloak-and-sword comedia, the two Restoration tragicomic ver- sions, and the eighteenth century prose comedy, enables us to follow the successive modifications in the treatment of one in- genious plot from the rigors of the drama of Calderon to the urbanity of the England of Chesterfield. ' Genest, op. cit., II, 364. W. D. Adams {Dictionary of the Drama, C, 20) adds "compressed" without citing authority. 2 Genest, III, 197. Adams, ihid., adds "still more compressed" with- out citing authority. * Genest, V, 132, 134. THOMAS HEYWOOD'S THE FAIR MAID OF THE WEST ROSS JEWELL I. Editions of the Play Edition of 1631. The two parts of The Fair Maid of the West were printed in qvarto in 1631. There is no trace of any other early edition. Copies of the quarto are scarce, but there are two in the British Museum and several other Enghsh libraries possess copies. There is also a copy in the Barton collection of the Boston PubUc Library; and another in a considerable collection of Early Editions of English Plays belonging to the University of Pennsylvania. Collation: Part I, A-I in fours, the title on A2. Part II, A-M2 in fours, the title on A2. A woodcut of a lady appears on both title-pages. If the cut was a new one made expressly for this play, which was far from the invariable practice of the period, it probably repre- sents Queen Henrietta before whom the two parts had recently been presented. But perhaps we should recognize in this cut the heroiae after her introduction to foreign courts.* The acts are not divided into scenes, the lines are unnum- bered, and Part II is without pagination. CoUier states that the Ust of actors prefixed to Part I is without heading in the "old copy" and suppUes "Dramatis Personae" in square brack- ets. There is no such lack in the only copy of the quarto I have seen. The printing of the quarto is a fairly good piece of work, but the following passages are certainly corrupt: I, i, 270; I, i, 306; I, ii, 2; and II, iv, 171. Mr. Fleay'' reports the latter part of Part II to be "very corrupt," but an exami- ' Cf. her own statement, I, iv, 133. 2 A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama, 1559-1642, I, 295. 62 heywood's the fair maid of the west 63 nation of the closing acts together with the variants will show that nearly all the difficulties can be readily surmounted by improving the punctuation — a task which Collier performed very well. If the author saw the proofs, as he certainly au- thorized the pubhcation, he must be held responsible for the constant carelessness in the division of the blank verse into lines. Greater care on the author's part would also have im- proved the measure in a great number of lines. Edition of 1850. In 1850 J. Payne Collier edited both parts for the (old) Shakespeare Society, modernizing the spelling and punctuation and emending without much hesitation. These de- partures from the text of the quarto are for the most part silent, notwithstanding the following statement in his introduc- tion: "We have never felt ourselves at Uberty to make the sUghtest insertion or omission, without either placing the added word within brackets, or distinctly mentioning in a note the exclusion of a particle. The language is He3Tvood's, to which we have adhered with scrupulous fideUty." The omission of two speeches at II, ii, 15-18, is a rather serious oversight. Edition of 1874. Both parts appeared in the complete edi- tion of The Dramatic Works of Thomas Heywood, pubUshed by John Pearson, London, 1874.' The text is a fairly accurate re- print of the quarto through Part I and the first two acts of Part II, but in the remaining three acts Collier's punctuation is continually and silently adopted. In the matter of itaU- cizing, too, Pearson is very imreliable. With the exception of a bare half-dozen the notes are copied verbatim and without acknowledgment from the edition of CoUier. Edition of 1888. In 1888 Part I, with four other plays of its author, appeared in the Mermaid Series of The Best Plays of the Old Dramatists: Thomas Heywood; edited by A. Wilson Verity, with an introduction by J. Addington SjTnonds. In a prefatory note the editor says: "The text of four of the » Under date of March 26, 1908, Pearson and Company, write me as follows concerning the editorial work of this edition: "As far as we re- member the late Mr. Richard Heme Shepherd was the editor." 64 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA plays contained in this volume is substantially that of Pear- son's reprint (1874); the exception is The Fair Maid of the West, reprinted from the edition by Collier, though I have felt it necessary to dissent from Collier's readings in several places. For the convenience of the reader I have attempted to indicate the changes of scene in the whole of the plays, marking also the probable locality of each scene, and altering the rather vague and unsatisfactory stage directions of the old copies." Conformably to the popular character of the series the notes are brief and pointed rather than fuU and illustrative. An un- fortunate printer's error, by which line 255 of the first act is made to foUow hne 258, renders one of Spencer's speeches unin- telligible. In general, it may be said that Verity's readings are preferable to Collier's where they differ, as are also his mod- ernizations, and the excellence of the edition is such that there is no room for another modernized text of this part of the play. II. Date of The Fair Maid of the West The Stationers' Register^ contains the following entry: 16to die Junij 1631 Richard Royston Entred for his Copie under the handes of Sir Henry Herbert and master Harryson warden a Comedy Called the fayre niayde of the west: 1st and 2d parte[s] .... vjd We learn from the title-pages (1631) that these plays had been "lately acted before the King and Queen" by the "Queens Majesties Comedians;" and it is stated in the first address to the reader that they had been "plausible in the publick act- ing." We know nothing further of the history of the comedies anterior to their appearance in quarto. The two items of in- formation just mentioned, that the plays had been performed before the Court and the public, are virtually repeated in the dedicatory epistle of the second Part, but nothing is added. ' Arber's Transcript. heywood's the faie maid of the west 65 Even the date of the Court performance, which Mr. Fleay at- tempts to fix as "probably at Christmas, 1630," is wholly a matter of conjecture. As was inevitable in such a case, the composition of the plays has been assigned to a considerable variety of dates. CoUier, referring to them in 1831, has this to say: "Written, as can be proved from internal evidence, before the death of Elizabeth."^ The evidence, however, was not permanently satisfactory even to Collier, for in his edition of the play he corrects a slip of the Mayor's, who has called himself "the Kings Lief tenant,"' thus: "The Mayor ought to have said, the QueerCs lieutenant, the time being 1597; but, when this play was written, the Mayor of Foy was the King's lieutenant."^ The occasion of the earlier reference calls for further notice. The mention of the play with the reference to its date occurs in a foot-note to a ballad dealing with the attack of prentices upon the "Cock-pitt Playhouse in Drury Lane," on March 4 (Shrove Tuesday), 1616-7, and copied by Collier "from a con- temporary MS." Among the stage effects destroyed, accord- ing to the ballad, were Besse Biydges gowne, and Muli's crowne but the following related line is better left unquoted, especially as the whole thing is probably only a skillful forgery. Upon these, two lines as a basis Collier makes this statement in his edition: "We know that they [the two plays] were in existence in 1617, when an attack was made upon the Cock-pit theatre, in Driu-y Lane, where they had been frequently acted."' Questionable as its foundation certainly is if we recall the notoriously unscholarly conduct of Collier, this statement has * A History of English Dramatic Poetry, I, 403. But in the same volume {Additional Notes and Corrections, p. xxii), he adds: "This remaA ought to have been limited to the first part of the play. The date of the second part is more uncertain." ' Cf. 1, iii, 187. * For an earlier notice of this slip (but later than Collier's Annals) see Genest, Some Account of the English Stage, IX, 591. ' Collier, Introduction to Fair Maid of the West, p. viii. 66 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA been widely accepted. It stands in a passage of some length which is quoted from Collier in the Pearson edition* without comment, and Verity' repeats the main fact without question and, indeed, without indicating its source. In the first edition of his English Dramatic Literature, Ward describes the play as "certainly acted by 1617"* and he continues of the same opinion in his life of Thomas Heywood in the Dictionary of National Biography (1891). But in 1891 appeared also Fleay's Bio- graphical Chronicle of the English Drama, in which its author with characteristic vehemence denoxmces the ballad as the "most impudent of aU fabrications." His argument is based on the Greenstreet papers,' which show that Heywood was a Queen's man at the Bull at the time of the attack upon the Cockpit, then occupied by the Lady Elizabeth's men. In the second edition of English Dramatic Literature^" Ward cites Fleay on the authenticity of the 1617 tradition and makes the date of the play "about ten years earUer" than the publication. Mr. Fleay's further efforts to fix the date of composition can not be reckoned among his greatest services to the history of English drama. Commenting upon the Andrew of I, v, 128, he asserts dogmatically that the aUusion is to Andrew Cane, "ac- tor at the Cockpit in 1622, and perhaps later, but before 1630." Continuing he says: "The end of Part 2, which surely has a by-reference to the Queen of Bohemia — And you, the mirror of your sex and nation, Fair English Elizabeth, as well for virtue As admired beauty, must have been written about 1622, 'ere you depart our Court.' This would agree with the reference to Andrew Cane." And he concludes with this remarkable passage: "The Proud Maid, acted at Court by the L. Eliz. men 1612, c. Mar. (and ' Ed. Pearson, Vol. I, Memoir, p. xxi. ' Ed. Verity, Introductory note, p. 75. 8 11, 112. ' Transactions of the Shakespeare Society, 1885. "!(, 567. A statement made in the former edition, that "the play was acted before King James," was now withdrawn. heywood's the fair maid of the west 67 absurdly identified with The Maid's Tragedy by some critics), was probably founded on the ballad of The Proud Maid of Plymouth, S. R. 1595, Oct. IS, and this Protid Maid of Ply- mouth was probably Bess Bridges; but this could not have been Heywood's play, as he was then writing for Queen Anne's men."" Professor Schelling in his Chronicle Play^ dates The Fair Maid of the West 1612, but in his Elizabethan Drama^ he makes it "before 1603." In both cases the date occurs in the "List of Plays" and the grounds for the assignment do not ap- pear, though it would seem from the mention of the play in the text that his earUer opinion was based on the popular in- terest in piracies from about 1609 onward. M. Jusserand men- tions the play twice in the same volume, dating it each time, but the dates are twenty-one years apart!" There is in the play, however, one word which, rightly un- derstood, solves the vexed question of date — Mullisheg. Our heroine's royal admirer is no other than Mulai Sheik, who after a period of civil strife following upon the death of his father was proclaimed King at Fez in 1604.^^ There is not the slight- est doubt that European interest in Moroccan affairs at this period was considerable, and the dramatist who had aheady brought the Virgin Queen upon the stage'^ now introduces to London playgoers the temporarily triumphant Moroccan Prince whose enigmatical character and spectacular career make any- thing but dull reading at a distance of three centuries. It is enough to say of him here that he was the favorite son, by a concubine, of Mulai Ahmet El-Mansour,i'' who made him Vice- roy of Fez and took the field against him, named him his suc- ^' Fleay, Biographical Chronicle, I, 295-6. " P. 277. "11,564. ^*nistoire LitSraire du Peuple Anglais, II, 520: "jou6 vers 1621;'' p. 811: "jou6 .... vers 1600." " Cf. 1, iv, 163-178. •' Cf. If you know not me, Part II, where an agent from Morocco is also introduced and the battle of Alcazar reported. " This king died of the plague August, 1603, 68 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA cesser and threw him into prison; that one brother ordered his death and another planned to put out his eyes; that the Fez- zans remained loyal to him while they condemned his wanton- ness; and that he was treacherously slain in camp in 1613 some years after his political star had set.^* There is only one obstacle in the way of this view and that is not insurmountable. Heywood makes Elizabeth and Mul- lisheg contemporary monarchs/' which involves an anachron- ism of a few months, but the dramatist may have thought of Mullisheg for a moment as Viceroy of Fez and, as an offset, Tota is hardly thinking of the Virgin Queen when she says of Spencer: If private men be lords of such brave spirits, How royall should their Princes he.'" That the first act of the play represents events of the year 1597 need not trouble us, for by the time Bess reaches Fayal The Towne's reedifide, and Fort new built'' and although one of her Spanish prisoners refers to Elizabeth as upon the throne,^ ^ a certain amoimt of time must be repre- sented by the chorus at the end of the fourth act. The Mayor of Foy's shp, noted above, proves conclusively that the au- thor's mind was moving in the borderland of two reigns. It is further worthy of note that Clem, who has "newly come into [his] Teenes,"^' seems to have no clear recollection of his father who died "the last deare yeare." He knows his father's honesty "by the report of his neighbors," and he has "heard them say" that as constable he "bolted and sifted out" a great " There is at least one other contemporaneous reference to Mulai Sheik in English drama. In Bamabe Barnes' Devil's Charter, pr. 1607, Baglioni (ed. McKerrow, 1. 1514) makes a punning allusion to "the dreadful name of MulU-sacke," where the editor understands "mulled sack'" 1' Cf. I, V, 103-18. " Cf. 11, ii, 374-5. » Cf. I, iv, 241. "■' Cf. I, iv, 336-8. » Cf. I, ii, 35. For the following quotations cf. 40, 48, and 52 of the same act. ' heywood's the fair maid of the west 69 amount of business in "that one yeare of his raigne." Now if this was the same dear year that took off Robin Ostler, it was probably 1596,¥ which would bring Clem's conversation with Bess into accord with the date suggested by the appearance of Mulai Sheik. The oft-repeated assertion that the Fair Maid of the West is one of the late pla}^ of its author finds no support in the drama itself. The comparative scarcity of rhjnnirig passages says nothing for a later date than we have assigned, while dumb show and chorus favor, though they by no means establish, an early date of composition. Better arguments aside, the whole tone of the piece is indicative of an earher period, and the pas- sages in praise of Queen Elizabeth must have been written for a pubUc which had known her as sovereign and that at no very distant date. III. The Question of Sources The source of the plot has not been discovered, nor, strange to say, has any suggestion been made in this direction. Ex- pressions of opinion, although sufficiently numerous, have gone no further than affirmation or denial of the author's originality .' Genest sees in the last word of the Chorus at the end of the third act of Part II a hint of an original: More of their fortunes we will next pursue, In wliich we mean to be as brief as true. But it would be easy to exaggerate the sigmficance of "true" here. "Pursue" was the natural word to use in the preceding hne and demanded a rhyming word that the speech might end with the usual couplet. Genest's statement^ that the Chorus '* Cf. the opinions of various scholars upon 1 Henry IV, II, i, 11-14. 1 That the plot is original is, in general, the older view; but so late an authority as Courthope {History of EngUsk Poetry, IV, 215) makes the general statement that Heywood's plots are "invariably invented by himself." ^English Stage, IX, 590-4: "He had such an abundance of poaterials on his hands, that he found it convenient to relate some of the incidents by means of a Chorus." 70 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA was introduced to condense the original must also be taken with caution. The Chorus may quite as well have been a device for stringing together episodes having originally no connection. At I, ii, 238, however, there is something that looks very much like a suggestion of an original: Caroll fell by me, And I fall by a Spencer. The lines belong to Spencer, the hero of the drama, who with Goodlack has been attempting to put a stop to a duel between the two Captains who visited the Castle tavern with Carrol in the first act and who were present when the latter was killed by Spencer. One of these Captains, then, bore the name of Spencer, and presumably he is the Spencer whose death is announced a little farther on and to whom the hero refers as "kinsman" in hne 465 of the same act. But how should our hero know the name of his antagonist? Does he not remember it from an earher time when they figured together in an earlier story? But it is altogether probable that any original the dramatist may have had before him contained suggestions for Part I only,' which constitutes a completed play and was doubtless so considered for a time by playwright and pubUc. Its popu- larity, however, warranting a sequel, it was only a matter of preparing new trials for the lovers. By providing the King of Fez with a Queen a variation of the old device of mistaken bedfellows becomes possible, and when at the end of three acts the pair is once more dismissed with royal bounty, Chorus readily transfers the party to Italy for a repetition at the Flor- entine Court of the princely love and ultimate bounty which we have twice witnessed at the Moorish Court. ' It would not be surprising if we should some day find an earlier story containing the material of the first four acts. heywood's the fair maid of the west 71 IV. Later History The only trace I have found of a seventeenth century pro- duction of the play later than the publication is contained in the notice of the drama in Hazlitt's Manual: "According to MS. Sloane 1900, it was performed at the King's Arms, Nor- wich, in 1662." The Biographia Dramatica (1812) has the following entry: " The Northern Inn; or The good Times of Queen Bess. Farce, altered by S. Kemble, from Heywood's Fair Maid of the West; or, A Girl worth Gold. Acted at the Haymarket, August 1791. Not printed." Genest^ adds that the occasion was Mrs. Stephen Kemble's benefit, August 16, and gives the second title as "the Days of Good Queen Bess." In 1899 portions of the first two acts of Part I were inserted in an acting version^ of Fortune by Land and Sea arranged for the annual theatricals of the Harvard Chapter of Delta Upsilon. On April 23 and 24, 1901, there was a notable revival of the play (Part I only) at the Hyperion Theatre, in New Haven, Connecticut, by the Yale Dramatic Association. The scenery, representing the Swan theatre, was that previously used by the Harvard EngUsh Department in a production of The Silent Woman. An Elizabethan audience had been trained for the occasion, and the details of an Elizabethan performance were observed even to the displa)dng of the red flag upon the theatre. Clem's humours and Rufifman's cowardice dehghted the audi- ences, and the spontaneity of the applause throughout renders probable the assertion on the title-page of the quarto that it had been acted "with approved liking." The recent conflict with Spain doubtless heightened the enjoyment of the spec- tators in the humiliation of the Spaniards.' Collier asserted that he had "in his possession a long ballad in MS., founded upon the plays."* If we make the only safe > English Stage, VII, 41. ' By Janet Edmondson Walker. • See illustrated articles in the Yale Daily News. * Collier, Introduction to Fair Maid of the West, p. ix. 72 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA disposition of this unsubstantiated statement, we have left but one example of the literary influence of The Fair Maid of the West — a novel, whose scarcity is my excuse for giving in fuU HazUtt's notice^ of the only copy of which I have any knowledge : The English Lovers: or, A Girle Worth Gold. Both Parts, so often acted with General Applause; now newly formed into a Romance. By the accurate Pen of I. D. Gent. London, Printed for H. Brome at the Gun in Ivy-Lane, 1662. 8°. Part I., A-E in eights: Part II., A-M, in eights, M8 with an Advertisement. Dedicated by John Dauncey to the Lady Elizabeth Bloundel. Part 2 has in this, the Bliss, copy a separate title dated 1661. This Novel is founded on Heywood's Fair Maid of the West, 1631. Incidentally, the confusion of two centuries as to the spelling of the author's name and even his identity is cleared up by the signature to the dedication. Winstanley^ gives his name cor- rectly, bestows lavish praise upon the romance, and quotes curious commendatory verses. Langbaine' notes the origin of the plot and confuses two distinct authors in attributing the novel to "John Dancer, alias Dauncy." The Biographia Dra- matica adds nothing and assigns it to the wrong man. HazUtt himself in earUer volumes gives the name of the author as "Daunce." It will be noted that the date of the novel coin- cides with the date of the performance of the play recorded above, and further that the title-page bears testimony to the popularity of our drama. V. A Sailor Drama In The Fair Maid of the West — if we may speak for a moment of Part I only — Heywood scores a brilliant success in a field in which he is, like Mullisheg, "sole without competitor." The sailor is a familiar figure in Elizabethan drama. Hardly anything is more common than the introduction of scenes at ' Bibliographical Collections and Notes 1474-1700. Third and Final Series. Second Supplement. ' Lives of the Most Famous English Poets (1687). ' An Account of the English Dramatick Poets (1691). heywood's the fair maid of the west 73 sea, with the inevitable storm and shipwreck or occasional sea- fight — all subsidiary, however, to the main action. But here is a play in which all the leading characters are sailors, and the life portrayed, whether on shipboard or in seaport taverns, is that of the sailor class in the age of Drake and Raleigh. More highly idealized pictures of various phases of English Ufe can be found in the plays of Heywood's contemporaries, but no truer transcript of contemporary life has been trans- mitted to us. The imconventionality of seafaring men, their proneness to drink and score, their readiness to give offense and resent insult, their dehght in feminine beauty with a cer- tain scepticism as to virtue, are all brought vividly before us, along with their devotion to their country, a devotion that to them is S5aionymous with hatred of Spain. And through all rims the story of the constant and ultimately happy love of a sailor and a sailor lass. That the hero of the play is a gentleman sailor only heightens its truthfuhiess to the times. The very spirit of the age speaks in Spencer's reply to Captain Goodlack as to his motives in joining the expedition to the Azores: Pillage, Captaine? No, tis for honor; And the brave societie Of all these shining Gallants that attend The great L. Generall, drew me hither first: No hope of gaine or spoyle. If it be objected that Bess is an impromptu sailor, the answer is that she treads the deck as though to the manner bom, nor are we willin g to doubt that Clem realized his ambition to "prove an honour to all the Drawers in Cornwall." The age produced other dramas of travel and adventure, but there is no comparison between The Fair Maid of the West and such plays as The Travailes of Three English Brothers, A Christian turn'd Turke, and Dicke of Deziows/tire— although the last named is far from being a poor play and contains a clown much like Clem. What the character of the lost plays 74 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA of this class-r-we have notices of several — was, we can only surmise. A play by Heywood and William Rowley bears some resemblance to ours in certaiin of its scenes, but Fortune by Land and Sea is in reality a domestic drama with several pirate scenes inserted. Any similarities that may exist between our play and Mas- singer's Renegado are too sUght to warrant discussion here of a drama so totally unlike Heywood's charming story of "Spencer and his westeme Besse." THE VALIANT SCOT, "BY J. W." JOHN LINTON CARVER I. Introductory In the year in which Ben Jonson died, and about five years before the closing of the theatres, there appeared from the press of Thomas Harper, in London, a play with the following brief title-page: The I Valiant / Scot. / By J. W. Gent. / London, / Printed by Thomas Harper for John Waterson, and are / to be sold at his shop in Pauls Church-yard, / at the signe of the Crown, / 1637. The copy of this edition now in the Ubrary of the University of Pennsylvania is a quarto, seven and one-half by five and one-half inches, and consists of seventy-five pages, without notes or introduction of any kind other than the dedication. The margins are narrow at the top and where reduced on the inner edge by a modern binding, but generous on the other sides. The page numbers are not printed, but have been added with pen and ink. The printer's lettering of forms in alphabetical order occurs at the bottom of the page, a httle to the right of the middle. This is consistently maintained. The first three leaves in each form are numbered, thus: Bl, B2, B3. The fourth leaf is never numbered. The type is usually, though not always, clear, and misprints are not fre- quent. The volume is in an excellent state of preservation. Of the career of the play upon the stage we have no present means of knowing. It does not appear to have aroused suf- ficient enthusiasm on the part of the public to demand a second edition. The merits of the play, while not entitling it to present day representation on the stage, are still such as to make it worthy 75 76 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA of careful reading. Crude in places, and often lacking in clear- ness, it is never wanting in action, or in the vigorous breath of the open air. It is, in a word, just such a play as Shakespeare, a generation before, might have taken and, in the work of a day, have changed into a masterpiece. In this respect alone — as a study of what it might have been with the touch of a master — ^it is worth pausing over. Of much more than the literary worth is the historical value of the present play. Students of Elizabethan drama, and in- deed of aU other literary fields and subjects, are recognizing more and more the necessity of having before them, as nearly as may be, the total mass of evidence. Much that would throw important light on the Elizabethan period is irrevocably lost; and in view of this fact it becomes us to preserve with especial care all that remains. There is always the possibility that, through the accumulation of apparently insignificant and unrelated details, we may j&nd ourselves in the possession of material that will either fortify our present positions, or, by lifting us above them, enable us to see their weakness or their insufficiency. The play before us is, however, much more than just one additional isolated fragment, to be added to the list of Elizabethan reprints for the sake of approaching complete- ness. In comparing it with its easily accessible source, we have, as we shall presently see, an interesting study in the dramatic use of material and the adaptation of a Scottish story to the English stage. In considering the question of authorship, we have to do with two men prominent, if not in the production, at least in the dissemination of Elizabethan literature. Finally in the dialect of certain parts of the play, there is material which may be made to throw light on the question — settled in the minds of some authorities, but debatable stiU in the minds of others — ^whether the London dramatists of the Elizabethan time were really able to express in writing the speech of Ire- land, Scotland, or provincial England. THE VALIANT SCOT, BY J. W. 77 II. The Play and its Source The source from which the main story of the play appears to have been drawn is the Wallace of Henry the Minstrel. This fact is estabUshed beyond reasonable doubt by evidence both external and internal. The first important point in the external evidence is the ab- sence of any other probable source. No other account that has come down to us from the time when the author of the play was writing, approaches the work of Blind Harry in com- pleteness of detail, vividness of portrayal, and popular form of presentation. The second point is a positive corollary to the one just stated. We know that in 1637 the poem of Blind Harry was popular and easy of access. Composed probably about 1470, it had been kept alive, first by oral tradition, later by manuscript copies — one very ancient manuscript is deposited in the Advo- cates' Library, Edinburgh — and still later by several printed editions. The frequency of these last is sufficient evidence of the popularity of the work and its place in the literature of the time. Jamieson records no less than five editions previous to 1637, dated as follows: 1570, 1594, 1601, 1620, 1630. Dr. Mackenzie, as quoted by Jamieson, says, "This book, being highly esteem'd amongst the vulgar, has had many impres- sions." It may be urged, perhaps, that this popularity was Scottish, and did not extend across the border. Doubtless this is true to a large extent; we may well believe that the English would not clamor for edition after edition of a story of English cruelty and English defeat. On the other hand, whatever may be our subsequent solution of the problem of authorship, there is reason for crediting the author of this play with a more than average familiarity with the Scottish legend. If he was John Waterson, the book-seller of Paul's Church-yard, he must siu:ely have met with at least one copy of the Scottish work. If he was the enthusiastic follower of the Marquis of Hamil- ton, as indicated in the dedication, he would take all the greater 78 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA pains to seek out a tradition popular north of the border. It is, then, a conclusion all but certain, that the author of The Valiant Scot was famihar with the work of Henry the Minstrel, We may now turn to the internal evidence bearing on the question of source. A casual glance at the contents of Blind Harry's poem reveals evidences of paralleUsm: the sla3dng of Young Selby by Wallace, the hero's love affair at Lanark, his marriage and the murder of his wife, his visit in disguise to the EngUsh camp, his exchange of messages with Edward I, the battle of Falkirk, the treachery of Mentith, the interviews of Bruce and Wallace, the death of the latter — all these find a place in the older account. The proof of indebtedness, however, rests upon a much stronger foundation than that of general resemblance in the material of the story. As we look more closely it becomes evident that the author of The Valiant Scot has purposely neglected the great mass of imrelated detail, and has applied himself closely to certain passages which were useful for his purpose. As we follow him in this we find that his indebted- ness is of two kinds: (a) for considerable portions of his plot, borrowed from corresponding portions of the story as told by the minstrel, but entirely recast in phrasing and arrangement of the dramatist's own; (6) for Unes borrowed, consciously or unconsciously, almost verbatim from the older work. Our consideration of the first of these phases of the author's indebtedness, i.e., his borrowing of incidents or suggestions for incidents, may be helped by a tabular arrangement of the pas- sages in which the paralleUsm is sufficiently close to attract attention. In the following table the references are to acts and lines in The Valiant Scot, and to books and lines, according to Jamie- son's edition (Glasgow, 1869), in the Wallace of Blind Harry. The opening line of each passage is the one referred to. THE VALIANT SCOT, BY J. W. 79 Incident Tyranny of Haselrig and Thome Death of Young Selby Haselrig in England Queen intercedes with Edward I Grimsby turns to Wallace Friendship of Graham and Wallace Massacre at Laverck Wallace's marriage Friar's speech Death of Wallace's wife Wallace and the English heralds Douglas, Macbeth, and Wintersdale Wallace in disguise to English camp Wallace's hunger Death of Selby and Haselrig Battle of Falkirk, Wallace to rear Bruce in the English army Defeat of the Scotch Interview of Bruce and Wallace The "blood-drinking" taunt Bruce refuses to fight against the Scots Wallace's defiance to Edward I Ghosts and visions appear to Wallace Betrayal of Wallace Wallace slays Mentith The incidents referred to above show a wide range as to closeness of parallelism. Some are scarcely more than nega- tive in their evidence, i.e., they simply show that at this point the author of The Valiant Scot was not proceeding contrary to the traditions of the Wallace. Such is the third incident in the list. Blind Harry does not identify the messenger with Hasel- rig, but, speaking of Amer Wallang, says: A man he gert sone to King Edward pas. And tald him haill of Wallace ordinance. Valiant Scot. Wallace I. 1. VI. 107. I. 138. I. 203. I. 336. VI. 273. I. 353. VI. 293. 11. 1. VI. 297. 11. 25. VI. 273. X. 557, etc. II. 70. VI. 230. II. 121. II. 50. VI. 48. II. S3. II. 346. II. 90. VI. 191. II. 192. VI. 341. II. 317. VI. 771. VI. 535. II. 337. VI. 435. III. 102. XI. 553. III. 185. VI. 230. IV. 25. X. 119. IV. 94. X. 203. rv. 116. X. 254. IV. 184. X. 439. X. 587. IV. 295. X. 527. V. 234. X. 720. V. 90. VIII. 1081. V. 144. XI. 360. VII. 80. V. 194. XI. 979. XI. 995. V. 321. XI. 149. 80 STUDIES m ENGLISH DKAMA Again the arrival of Douglas, Macbeth, and Wintersdale has only a distant counterpart in the coming of Haliday and his sons, with Jarden and Kyrkpatryk, to Wallace's standard before the battle of Biggar.^ The turning of Douglas to Wallace in the poem^ is likewise unimportant and incidental. The im- portance of quoting the incident as a parallelism arises, not so much from the closeness of the parallel, as from the fact that the author of the play has here, apparently, permitted himself for once to follow the blind minstrel into a digression. The poem is full of just such incidents quite aside from the line of dramatic unity, the rehearsing by name of the supporters who flocked to Wallace being the most frequent. Sometimes the incident as related in the old poem seems to have been taken as a suggestion by the playwright, and worked up along an entirely different line. Such is the story of Wal- lace's hunger. In the poem,^ soon after his return from France he and his men are on the point of starving, and Wallace goes forth to provide food. Unsuccessful in the search, he sits down by the way and falls asleep. Five Englishmen approach. Wallace awakes, slays them one by one as they flee, and takes possession of the food that is being carried along for them by a boy. In the play^ Wallace, ship-wrecked, asks food of an Enghsh justice and his servant, and is compelled to carry their luggage. In a brief time revolting against the situation, he announces his name and the two flee in terror while he ransacks the luggage for food. Again, there is nothing stronger than suggestiveness in several others of the incidents referred to. The friendship of Graham and Wallace is a much stronger and more important influence in the old poem, culminating in the bitter grief of the latter when the former is slain at Falkirk. In the treatment of the supernatural the author of the play is indebted to the poem for suggestion rather than for actual inci- > WMace, VI, 535. ' Ibid., VI, 771. » Ibid., XI, 553. * The Valiant Scot, III, 102 Jf. THE VALIANT SCOT, BY J. W. 81 dent. The Wallace of tradition is a man of visions; he dreams of being sold to the English; but at no time do the spirits of his dead companions appear to him with definite messages. As a final example of the material l)dng thus in the fringes of conveyance, may be cited the killing of Mentith by Wallace with a blow of the fist. The closest parallel that we can find in the source is the account of his fight with the two champions in France.^ These men, jealous of the royal favors Wallace had received, come upon him when he is unarmed, and taunt him, preparatory to dispatching him with their swords. Noth- ing daunted, Wallace rushes at them and slays them with his bare hands. The real evidence of source appears, however, not in these outlying details, but in the author's use of Books VI and X of the Wallace. Here we find a much more consistent adherence to the original narrative. In Book VI there is the tyranny of the English commissioners as an enveloping action, the prepa- rations of Edward for the invasion of Scotland, the defection of Grimsby, the love affair of Wallace, the massacre at Laverck, the death of Wallace's wife, the incident of the English her- alds, the journey of Wallace in disguise to the English camp, and the death of Selby and Hasebig — ^in a word, the important material for the first three acts. Book X and small portions of Book XI furnish the matter for Act IV (the battle) and Act V (the betrayal of Wallace). It is not to be expected that a seventeenth century dramatist, drawing from a fifteenth century narrative poem twelve thou- sand lines long, could do so without many changes. In the present case the playwright seems to have been actuated by two motives, the first and less important being a desire to avoid the apotheosis of Wallace and the anathematizing of England which are so strongly characteristic of the Scottish tradition; the second and more evident, an effort to select and combiae incidents and characters in such a way as to produce dramatic unity. sTfo//a«e,XI, 149, 82 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA The changes made in the direction of the first of these objects are sometimes far from satisfactory. For example, in the mas- sacre of Laverck the dramatist represents women, children, and clergy as indiscriminate sufferers with the guilty; while the chronicler, perhaps twenty times in the course of his narrative, gives assurance that the innocent never suffered from Wallace's vengeance. Perhaps a more serious gUght to the memory of the hero is the nature of the closing scene. The older poem closes with the martyrdom of Wallace, a lament for him, and the assurance of his eternal bhss. The plaj^wright minimizes the effect of this by taking up, as soon as Walkce is hurried away to trial, an action in which Bruce and King Edward are the centre of interest, as if to withdraw attention from the hero's fate. King Edward appears as the magnanimous pa- tron. He jests mysteriously about making Bruce's head feel the weight of English displeasure, and then solves the riddle by crowning Bruce King of Scotland. The reconciliation was perhaps the happiest possible one in the days when the Stuarts were on the EngUsh throne. To the present-day reader it is not pleasant to have Bruce receive so promptly from the ty- rant the crown that the dead patriot had paid blood and treas- ure to win for him, and had tried in vain to persuade him to take. Another attempt to balance Scottish and English enthus- iasm is the elaboration of Clifford. Clifford is the one char- acter in the play whose motives are uniformly and consistently noble, the one person who never perplexes or disappoints us. His individuality is in no way borrowed from the Minstrel, who barely mentions him, but is a careful and loving elabora- tion by the dramatist. The changes for the sake of dramatic unity are worthy of careful consideration. We have clearly before us the problem that the dramatist had to solve. In the old narrative multi- plicity of incident and of action ran on, limited only by the extent of the story to be told, and the exhausting of the list of traditional participants. The story as handed down is every- thing. In the drama all that is to be told must be brought THE VALIANT SCOT, BY J. W. 83 within bounds and related part to part. The difference is suf- ficient to account for changes even more remarkable than those that have taken place. One of the best examples of change in the plot for the sake of dramatic unity is the following: In the older version, Wal- lace is represented as slaying Young Selby in a quarrel which grows out of the latter's taunts about a knife that the former is wearing; and the maiden with whom Wallace is in love, and whom he marries, is not the girl of Young Selby's choice, but the one that Haselrig desires in marriage for his son. The dramatist has combined the incidents, eliminated Young Hasel- rig, made the girl the object of the quarrel between Wallace and Yoimg Selby, and the killing of the latter the introduction to an important train of circumstances. The dramatic handling of events about the massacre of La- verck is less easy to imderstand. The poem represents the massacre as Wallace's vengeance for the killing of his wife. In the play the ambiguous action of Graham in delivering Wal- lace to the English is interposed before the massacre. Then the slaughter at Laverck is the blow of Wallace in return for his imprisonment; the murder of Peg, Old Wallace, and the Friar forms the English retort; and Wallace's cruelty to Se- bastian and the English ambassadors is his final thrust in the duel of outrage. Perhaps the dramatist's reason for placing the smaller and less important outrage in the more important position was his feeling that, for dramatic purposes, the slaugh- ter of one, and the maiming of two of the dramatis personae is a stronger vengeance than the reported killing of thousands. The desire for dramatic unity is perfectly manifest in the management of Wallace's journey in disguise to the English camp. By Blind Harry, Wallace is represented as meeting a peddler on the way, exchanging garb with him, buying his stock of merchandise, and proceeding in the disguise. Except for a brief conversation with some soldiers as to his wares, he speaks with no one. The dramatist has put life into this scene, and used it to bind together the action. Again, in Wal- 84 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA lace, Haselrig perishes in the massacre of Laverck, while Selby disappears from the thread of the story. The playwright re- serves them for one of the scenes which, like that referred to above, have no counterpart in Blind Harry, and which seem to have been purely the product of the dramatist's invention. It is perhaps needless to remark that the humorous elements in the play have no root in the grim soil of the old chronicler's domain. The one cheerful iacident in the old narrative, Wal- lace's lovemaking, has been brought by the dramatist into the shadow of tragedy, and the dramatic rehef in the play comes from quite another source, the buffoonery of Sir Jeffrey and Bolt. We come now to the second part of the internal evidence of J. W.'s indebtedness to Blind Harry, namely, the borrowing of certain lines almost verbatim. The marked instances are three in number. Two of them occur within twenty-five Unes of each other. In the play' the ghost of Peg appears to Wal- lace and says, Alace Scotland to wham salt thou compleyne, Alace, fra mourning wha sail the refayne? In the poem' are the following lines, at the beginning of the Minstrel's lament for the capture of Wallace: Allace, Scotland, to quhom sail thow compleyn! Allace, fra payn wha sail the now restreyn! Perhaps the author of the play was imconscious in his convey- ance. The hnes quoted from the older poem are striking enough by reason of their character and their position, to re- main in the fringes of memory. If the dramatist purposely avoided following the Minstrel in the second line of the coup- let, he quite imconsciously fell into another line of the old poem' speaking of the general sorrow for Graham after the battle of Falkirk: Was na man thar fra wepyng mycht hym refrejoi. •V, 172. ' XI, 1109. 1 X, 583. THE VALIANT SCOT, BY J. W. 85 The third striking verbal parallel is this: in the play, after the killing of Young Selby, Peg rushes in and, thinking that Wallace has fallen, cries, Wa is me, ligs my luife on the cawd ground, Let me come kisse his frosty mouth.' In the original the woman who confirms to Wallace the re- port of his vuicle's death at the hands of the English says,'" His frosty mouth I kissit in that sted. Another instance of parallel phrasing, while not so closely verbatim, is worthy of notice as a proof of the writer's acquaint- ance with the Wallace poem, and the characters it contains, aside from those appearing in the play. In the play" occurs the perplexing passage, spoken by Mentith to Comyn regard- ing their plots against the life of the patriot leader: Ment. I have beside with Wallace sherife of life, Held private conference, who in Longshancks name, Who swears to me we shall have good preferment. Beside the promist gold. (The itaUcs are those of the 1637 edition.) The absurdity of the first line is apparent. The intention of the author is not clear, however, until we read'^ And Jhon Wallang, was then schyreff off Fyff. To summarize: The Wallace poem of Henry the Minstrel may be definitely regarded as the source of Tke Valiant Scot because (1) it was in 1637 the most available reservoir of mate- rial on the Scotch hero; (2) a comparison of the two works shows parallels of a nature to indicate that portions of the poem were used as a background, portions as suggestion, and portions as material for the body of the play; (3) the presence of passages parallel verbatim in phrasing confirms the previous evidence. ' The Valiant Scot, I, 246. 1" WMace, VII, 279. " The Valiant Scot, V, 192. "fTaWace, XI, 891. 86 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAUA II. The Question of Authorship Who is the author of the play before us? The title-page proclaims one "J. W., Gent[leman]." The dedication, written to all appearances in the person of the author, is signed by William Bowyer. The pubhsher is John Waterson. Out of all this, what evidence can be brought to show who really wrote the play? The problem seems never seriously to have been considered. The British Museimi, in its Catalogue of Printed Books, credits the work to J. W. without comment, and without mention of Bowyer. Fleay, in his Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama, calls it the work of J. W., and queries, "Was the pub- Usher the author?" Ward arrives at a different conclusion. In A History of English Dramatic Literature, he says: William Bowyer seems to have been the author of a play called The Valiant Scot (printed 1637), which in the Dedication signed by him under that name he offers to the Marquis of Hamilton, as 'one amongst his mean- est followers in his Lordship's practicall life of aSouldier;' "What he has he bestows upon him.' Yet in the title-page the play announces itself as 'by J. W., Gent.'» In none of the instances cited above has the historian offered reasons for his conclusion. It is worth while, then, for us to consider the questions involved, and the suggestions which the play itself, together with other circumstances, throws on the solution. If we are to accept the title-page as authority, we shall be led to ask, who was J. W.? Was he the John Waterson by whom the play was pubUshed? And if J. W. wrote the work, what were his relations with William Bowyer, and William Bowyer's relations with the play, and with the Marquis of Hamilton, and why should he offer the work to a patron as if it were his own? 1 1 have quoted verbatim from Ward (ed. 1899), III, 159. He has not followed the original exactly, but has preserved the essentials. THE VALIANT SCOT, BY J. W. 87 If, on the other hand, we are persuaded by the dedication to accept the authorship of Bowyer, on what grounds can we jus- tify our ignoring of the title-page? It is not the hope of the present essay to arrive at a positive and definitely satisfactory solution of this problem. The best that seems possible at present is to bring together the avail- able facts, and to set them in such order that they will give us their greatest significance. If we take up the questions involved in the order in which we have stated them, we shall first inquire, who was J. W.? The search for a personahty aside from the publisher, and bearing the same initials, does not result in anything more than material for conjecture, and that of the most hazardous kind. There is certainly no dramatist of the period whom we may call in to assume responsibility for the present play. To at- tempt to estabUsh identity between any two names on the basis of fragmentary remains in widely different fields of literature, without a particle of biographical or other information as an aid, and without so much as a clue by way of introduction or hypothesis, would be an undertaking quite beyond the spirit of present-day Uterary exploration. If, then, the initials J. W. are to imply to us a real personality, we must connect them with the name of John Waterson. To answer with some definiteness the question, who John Waterson was, is not difficult. Our principal sources of in- formation are The Catalogue of Printed Books in the British Museum, The Catalogue of Early Printed Books in Cambridge University Library, and Arber's transcript of the Stationers' Register. John Waterson came of a family of stationers and pubhshers. His parental grandfather, Richard, obtained the freedom of the Stationers' Company on December 7, 1555. While there is no record of Richard's having been a pubhsher, yet his career as a stationer is illuminated here and there by entries of such general interest as to warrant their insertion. 88 STimiES m English drama Item Recevyd the vij of Decembre [1555] of Rycharde waterson in Recom- pence of his brakefaste at his makynge fre iijs iiijd.' John humffray Apprentes with Rycharde waterson presented the xviij Daye of apiill [1558] vjd.» Rycharde waterson ys fyned for the lyke offence* aforesayde and also for behavynge hym selfe Dysobedyently before the Master and War- dyns iiijd.' Recevyd of Rycharde Waterson for his fyne for that he Ded kepe his shoppeopen onthesondayesyexxxof auguste[15S9] xxd.' Recevyd of Rycharde waterson for his fyne for openynge of his shoppe upon sondayes [1560] vjd.' There are entries also recording his contribution to "a col- lection to be gathered of the companye by the commandement of the lorde the maiour and the Court of aldermen for the house of brydeweU;"' and "to a benevolence given towardes the chargis of our hall,"' and again to the benevolence given "towardes our [Injcorperation."'" Simon Waterson, the representative of the second genera- tion, left behind him on the Register a less interesting, but more substantial and worthy record. After being admitted to the freedom of the Company August 14, 1583, apparently soon after his father's death, he lived to complete more than half a century of honorable membership, and to be twice War- den (1603 and 1610) and twice Master of the Company (1617 and 1621). He was admitted into the livery of the Company under date of July 1, 1592. The Ust of his publications is one of the longest and most important in the Register. In 1601 he was the representative of his Company at the Lord Mayor's feast. The career of John Waterson overlaps considerably that of his father. Admitted to the freedom of the Company June 2 Arber I, 34. ' Arber I, 74. * Keeping shop open on festival day. 6 Arber I, 94. "Arber I, 123. ' Arber I, 158. 8 Arber I, 47. " Arber I, 49. "Arber I, SO. THE VALIANT SCOT, BY J. W. 89 27, 1620, he did not enter his first book until some two years and a half later, January 25, 1623. The last entry of a book by Simon Waterson occurs on April 30, 1633. Further entries by John Waterson continued at intervals until November 13, 1639. His name is much less conspicuous than his father's. It does not appear that he was an important element in the Company or in the publishing trade of the city. His father had been a man who was sought by apprentices. The son does not appear on the records in this connection. His entries of books are less frequent than those of his father. It does not seem that this was due to competition on the part of the senior Waterson, for the latter has but four entries of books upon the Register after his son was granted the freedom of the Company, and two of these were made before the latter had availed himself at all of the privilege. It was not, however, until so late as August 19, 1635, that the father transferred to the son the rights in books standing at that time upon the Register in the name of the former, twenty-four works in all. How much, during these years from 1620 to 1635, the father stood in the way of the son's independent prosperity, how much his reputation served to keep business in his name and prevent it from falling into the hands of the son, what was the business relation between the two, and what the son's character as a man of affairs, it is impossible to say. The following are the books entered by John Waterson in the Register of the Stationer's Company: 25 January, 1623, A sermon at the funerall of Sir Robert EuUer, by master Thomas Howell. 14 April, 1626, The Staple of News. [The author is not named in the entry.] 25 November, 1626, Hymnus tobaci autore Raphaele Thorio. 10 January, 1629-30, The Crewell Brother written by William Davenant. 10 January, 1629-30, The Just Italian, by the same. 6 March, 1629-30, The muses' Ehzium with three other Divine poemes, Noah's ffloud. Moses Miracles. The Combate of David and Goliah by Michaell Drayton esquire. 22 March, 1629-30, The Runegado by Philip Messenger. 90 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA 19 November, 1631, The Emperor of the East. [No author named in the entry.] 16 January, 1632, The maid of Honor by Philip Massinger. 8 April, 1634, The two noble fa'nsmen by John ffletcher and William Shakespeare. 8 August, 1634, The Picture written by Master Messinger. [This is assigned to Waterson by Thomas WaJkeley.] Upon August 19, 1635, these books were assigned by Master Simon Waterson to John Waterson: The Christian Directory guiding all men to their salvation. Master Samuel Daniells small Poems, viz*. Delia. The Tragedy of Cleopatra. The disention betweene the houses of Yorke and Lancaster. A Letter sent from Octavia to her husband Marcus Antonius into Egipt. and the tragedy of Philotus and the Queenes Arcadia. Josephus in English. Compendium Religionis by Hieronomi Zanchij. The Preachers Plea. Sir Philip Sidneys Arcadia. The Remaines concerning Brittaine by W: Cambden. Riders Dictionary. A Comedy called Lingua. His part of Master Perkins on the Gallathians. his treatice of christian Equity, his treatice of Mans Natural! Imaginations, his whole booke of the Cases of Conscience contayning ye first second and third bookes. Staffords Geography. Blagraves Art of Dialling. His part of Dent on the Revelacion. Owens Epigrams. His part of Polibius. A Collection of the History of England by Samuel DanieU. The original entries to John Waterson continue: 12 September, 163S, The femall glory or the life and death of the blessed virgin Mary &c. by Anthony Stafford gent. 29 March, 1636-7 [Entered with John Benson]. The Elder Brother writ- ten by John ffletcher. 26 April, 1637, The Valiant Scott." ''The complete entry is as follows: Master Waterson Entered for his Copie under the hands of Master Herbert, and Master Downes warden a Tragedy called the Valiant Scott vjd. THE VALIANT SCOT, BY J. W. 91 22 January, 1638-9, Monsieur Thomas by master John ffletcher. 14 February, 1638-9, The unnatural! Combatt by Phillip Massinger. 13 November, 1639, The History of Annaxander and Orazia, translated out of French into English by William: Duncomb. This is our fund of knowledge concerning John Waterson. Meagre in extent, it is almost equally barren of suggestion. There is in it nothing whatever to help us toward a knowledge of possible relations between Waterson and Bowyer, or be- tween Waterson and the Marquis of Hamilton. Two circum- stances, however, may have bearing on the question of whether the pubUsher tried his hand at the composition of a play. The first of these is his apparently secondary place as a man of affairs. For the purpose of forcing circumstances into a theory, it would be possible to accoimt for Waterson 's less prominent place in business, by assigning him a more promi- nent place as a man of letters. To do this is quite beyond our intention, and quite beyond the hmits of reasonable criticism. John Waterson's inconspicuous position in the Stationers' Reg- ister, as we have aheady suggested, may be accounted for in many ways more reasonably than by leaping to the inference that he was devoting himself to dramatic composition. The second circiunstance is much more significant. It is the preponderance of plays in the works entered by John Waterson in the Stationers' Register. Of the sixteen books originally published by him, and entered to his credit in the Register, twelve are dramas. The one assignment to him aside from that made by his father, is the transfer of the rights in a play. When we compare the list of works entered by John Waterson on his own account with the list of those that he received from his father in 1635, the contrast is striking. In the latter the drama is but a minor item. Again, it is worth while to compare the busmess of John Waterson in this respect with the total volume of business recorded in the Register. Let us take the year 1630. In that year the yoimger Waterson entered four works, all of them plays. During the same twelve months the Stationers' Register shows one hundred and thirty-eight 92 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA original entries (i.e., excluding transfers and assignments). Of these only fourteen are plays. There needs no further evi- dence to show that John Waterson made the publication of plays the especial feature of his business. This fact is certainly worth something'. While it proves nothing, it strengthens the probabihty that the pubUsher was a man interested in the drama, and so a man likely, in the in- tervals of business affairs, to undertake the composition of a play. The evidence in hand does not, however, assist us in con- necting Waterson with The Valiant Scot. That the author's name does not appear in the entry is not significant. It will be noticed that Ben Jonson's authorship of The Staple of News is not recorded, and the same is true of Massinger's ia The Em- peror of the East. There is no internal evidence to show that the author of The Valiant Scot had been influenced in any way by the plays pubUshed by Waterson, or to any extent by the authors of those plays. At this point, then, until the appearance of new evidence, the case of Waterson as a claimant for the title of authorship must rest. Our investigation of WiUiam Bowyer's connection with the play, and his possible connection with Waterson, is checked in the beginning by the absence of all record of the man outside the text of the dedication. His own words there describe him as "one among your [the Marquis of Hamilton's] Meanest followers." However much his modesty may have exagger- ated the matter, his position was evidently not such as to ad- mit him to the concourse of earls, archbishops, and royalty who throng the pages of Burnet's Memoirs of the Hamiltons. There was a "WiU: Bowyer, Knight, "admitted tothedegree of Master of Arts^^ at Oxford under date of August 30, 1605, on the occasion of the King's visit to the University, but that he was the writer of this dedication there is no shadow of proof. It is quite impossible, therefore, to suggest any reason for Bowyer's be- 12 Wood: Fasti Oxonienses, I, 315, THE VALIANT SCOT, BY J. W. 93 coming sponsor for a play of Waterson's, or for his claiming it for his ovra. The dedication itself, it will be noticed, is color- less as to the writer's intention to appear as the author of the play. He writes, "What I have I bestow upon you." There is nothmg of an author's natural anxiety for the product of his own pen, nothing of expectant waiting for favorable criticism. The note of dedication might equally have accompanied the gift of a vase from a London potter's, decorated with a repre- sentation of Wallace in victory. The oftener one reads the words of dedication, the more strongly does one feel that they speak of a piece of merchandise, and not of the dedicator's own work. A stronger suggestion of Bowyer's possible authorship of the play lies in the miHtary flavor of the scenes and the action. The prevalence of fencing terms, brought sometimes without necessity into the dialogue as if the speech of the camp were the source to which the writer turned naturally for a simile or a jest, adds to this effect. There is the breath of out-of-doors in the pages. This bespeaks the soldier rather than the pub- Usher as the man who wrote it. And yet the fallibility of any reasoning that fails to take into account an author's ability to project himself completely into a new experience is so pat- ent that the argimient set forth above must be pursued with the utmost caution. Waterson's claim, then, rests upon: first, the title-page, a strong presimiption; second, his apparent disinclination to business enterprise, a distant inference; third, his evident in- terest in the drama, or his beUef in it as a commercial com- modity, a point of considerable significance. Bowyer's case is built upon: first, the text of the dedication, a foundation which appears weaker under examination; second, the military spirit of the play, a piece of evidence which it is easy to emphasize too strongly. Therefore, imtil more definite evidence is discovered, the authorship of our play must remain an unsolved problem. 94 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA IV. The Printer Thomas Harper, from whose press The Valiant Scot was issued, was one of the most important of the London printers and pubhshers of his time. For our knowledge of him we are indebted to Arber. He was the "son of William Harper, of Woolzaston in the county of Salop, minister." He was ap- prenticed, on July 25, 1604, to Melchisedek Bradwood, for a period of seven years from the Michaelmas {i.e., September 29) following. Whether the boy's father chose the master for his skill in printing or for his delightfully ecclesiastical name, the Register does not pause to remark. One month after the ex- piration of his term of service Harper obtained the freedom of the Stationers' Company. His first entry of a book was form- ally recorded on July 2, 1614, and his last on September 9, 1640. During the intervening years his name appears ia connection with thirty-four original entries, besides several transfers. In 1627 he was one of the three representatives of the Stationers' Company at the Lord Mayor's feast. Harper's path to recognition among the master printers of his time was not easy. It will be recalled that the number of master printers that might practise their trade in London was limited by statute, usually to twenty or twenty-two. The eagerness with which men sought, by purchase or even by marriage, to become members of th& favored group is interest- ingly told by Mr. Arber in the introduction to Volume V of his reprint of the Stationers' Register. The printing business to which Harper succeeded hadHbeen estabhshed at least as early as 1577 by Thomas East (Este). About 1608 East left it to Thomas Snodham, whose executors, probably about 1625, sold it to George Wood and his partner, one Lee, whose Christian name has been lost. From these two men the business passed into the hand of Harper. Somewhere there had crept into the transfers a flaw in the title to the rights of a master printer. Arberi quotes from State Papers, Charles I, Vol. 307, Art. 86 — 'Vol. in, p. 701. THE VALIANT SCOT, BY J. W. 95 the record was probably made in the autumn of 1635 — as follows: Master Thomas Harper succeeded Thomas Snodham about 6 yeeres since never admitted as I beleeve: (wood had him in ye [courts of] Re- questes and Chauncery) wood claimeth such. The position of Harper was settled in 1637, when his name was duly included in the hst of master printers authorized by the decree of the Council of Star Chamber. The uncertainty of his case previous to that year does not seem seriously to have interfered with his business. Between 1634 and 1640 he printed books for at least twenty-six differ- ent pubhshing houses. Eighty-three works that were issued from his press during those years are preserved in the Library of Cambridge University. V. Literary Aitixiations of the Play It is important to consider the position of the present play with reference to the dramatic Uterature of its time. It be- longs obviously in the group of chronicle plays. The real question concerns its place in the group. It will be remembered that the high tide of chronicle drama had occurred in the decade from 1590 to 1600, forty years or more before the time of The Valiant Scot. From 1600 to the end of the reign of James I, the ebb had been constant. Of the plays that have come down to us from the first seven years of the reign of Charles I, not one is of this class. In 1633 the long inactivity was broken by the appearance of Ford's Perkin Warbeck, a conscious and remarkable effort to bring the chroni- cle play back to the position that it had held more than a genera- tion before. In the same year appeared He)rwood's Royal King and Loyal Subject, and, three years later. Chapman's Alphon- sus of Germany and Carhell's Arviragus and Philicia were added to the nearly completed hst. The Valiant Scot (1637) is the last extant chronicle play written before the closing of the theatres. 96 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA In these five plays, the scanty product of as many years, it is not to be supposed that we have material for any extensive or valuable generalizations. The literature is too scanty, the impetus too weak, to give us any marked tendency. The prod- ucts of these closing years of the chronicle play are essentially desultory and sporadic. Not one of the other plays approaches the standard set by Ford. The three that follow Perkin War- beck are really not EngUsh. The Royal King and Loyal Sub- ject is entirely devoid of local setting and spirit; the Alphonsus of Germany has only a few characters from Enghsh history; and the Arviragus and Philicia has only a very distant connec- tion with British and early Saxon tradition. While thus departing in certain essential qualities from the type of the earher English chronicle play, the works of these years show, here and there, a tendency toward the heroic drama, a form already suggested in John Fletcher's Philas- ter, and which was about to rise into greater importance with Davenant, Orrery, and Dryden. In the Royal King, and in Alphonsus, this tendency scarcely extends beyond the removal to extra-historical setting. There are exaggerated types of character, to be sure, but they are not of the sustained, con- sciously and purposely enlarged form that belong to the heroic drama. In Arviragus and Philicia the marks of the heroic, although lessened in effect by the prose form of the dialogue, are more pronounced. There is the element of casuistry, amounting at times almost to tediousness; there is the conflict of love and honor, appearing at every turn, each time in some new form or under new conditions; there are paragons of brav- ery, loyalty, honor, and female devotion. Compared with the plays of which we have just been speak- ing, The Valiant Scot is a decided reversion to the earher type of chronicle play. Nowhere, perhaps, is there more abim- dant somrce of incident for drama upon an exaggerated scale than in the Wallace of Blind Harry. While there is Uttle con- nected story, and less dramatic force in sustained action, there is abundance of incident, with Wallace, the ecjual of twenty THE VALIANT SCOT, BY J. W. 97 men, towering in the midst of the conflict, to tempt the man who handles it to indulge in the exaggerations of the heroic style. But the writer was not enticed by the material. Whether a fear of painting the Scottish hero in too attractive a guise — a matter to which we refer elsewhere — or a desire to portray sol- dier life in England and Scotland in its reality, or an artistic preference for the older form of the chronicle play and a dis- taste for the heroic — whether one or all of these influences re- strained the author, it is impossible to say. At all events he followed closely, for the most part, the historic tradition, and in his use of it and in his additions gave us a play that is strongly vernacular in style, and clearly national in setting — ^more EngUsh than Scotch, perhaps, but never foreign to the United Kingdom. It is typical of the national spirit, moreover, even to the extent of trying to harmonize the patriotism of both sides of the border, to make Scotchmen proud of their national heroes, and equally proud of the fact that they are, by adop- tion, compatriots with Clifford and Royal Edward. VI. Dialect in The Valiant Scot Another interesting question in connection with the present play is suggested by the passages in dialect. It has been af- firmed by some authorities that no writer of Elizabethan drama expressed accurately the provincial forms of speech. Others dissent from this opinion. What evidence does the present play contribute upon this point? Does it appear that the author knew Scottish dialect? And if so, was he careful to write the language as it was spoken? As prehminary to a discussion of this point, it may be well to recall the conditions of the time. It will be remembered that in the early seventeenth century London was, fuUy as much as at present, the centre of the English world. The life that gathered there was quite as cosmopoUtan as is that of the pres- ent day. The portion of that life contributed by England, Scotland, and Iifeland must certainly in those days have ex- 98 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA ■ hibited a greater and more picturesque variety than is to be found in the London residents or visitors from these several dis- tricts of the United Kingdom at present. The habits and fashions of the metropolis did not spread throughout the coun- try with modem rapidity. The rural districts and provincial cities must have retained much more of their local flavor than now. In proportion as the men who came up to London brought with them the manners and speech of their home dis- tricts, the hfe of the capital was enriched with a greater variety of EngUsh, Scottish, and Lrish coloring than at the present time, when the leveling up in dress, manners, and speech goes on more rapidly and more completely. If to the Londoner of today the dialects of Kent, Cornwall, and Yorkshire, of north and south Ireland, are familiar at first hand, stiU more so must they have been in the days of the early Stuarts. If the author of our play was William Bowyer, the follower of the Marquis of Hamilton, he was of course familiar with Scottish speech. If he was John Waterson, the London pub- hsher, his opportimities for hearing the dialect of the Scotch side of the border were only a httle less frequent. Probably not a day passed that he did not listen to some form of it in his shop "at the Signe of the Crown." There is a marked difference, however, between the ability on the one hand to understand a dialect, to assign it to its proper locality, and even to appreciate the deUcate shades of meaning that its words and phrases may involve, and the abil- ity on the other hand to write that dialect with sufficient pre- cision to make it recognisable to the reader. The difficulty of the process was increased in no inconsiderable degree for the writer who lived in the age of James, when, although the art- less spelling of earlier times had passed away, and the writing of dialect had become essentially a conscious process, still the spelling and pronunciation of the standard language had not yet crystallized, and when, needless to add, philological con- siderations were, of all thoughts in the world, most remote from the mind of the dramatist. THE VALIANT SCOT, BY J. W. 99 In view of these conditions, one might ahnost venture to predict, with the volumes unopened, the nature of passages of dialect in the drama of Elizabethan and early Stuart times. There is to be expected, in general, the evidence of ready famili- arity with the commonplaces of contemporary dialect, but a lack of care or of knowledge in the more unusual phrases and the more deUcate shades of meaning. The evidence of the play itself goes to show that the author of The Valiant Scot had a passing acquaintance at least with the Scottish dialect. He had a considerable vocabulary of words that would be recognized as Scotch anywhere and at any time since the anglicised speech succeeded the Gaehc. These are sufficiently evident in the text, and need no comment. When we come to examine the dialectal passages more closely, however, we find evidence that he was not completely familiar with the speech he was essaying to write, or, if familiar with it, that he was careless in committing its sounds to writ- ing. The most important cases that claim attention in this connection are the following: First, there is apparent uncertainty as to the function and place of certain Scottish sounds. For example, the author seems to have recognized the sound of French m as a character- istic note of Scottish speech, but he has made it serve an indis- criminate variety of purposes, quite beyond its real function. The following examples show this unscientific variety: above appears as abuife; love as luife; gives as guifes; stick as suike; looked as luicked; look as luke; if as guif, gif. Similarly the author seems to have cast about in no little confusion for a spelling to represent in Scottish dialect the sound of Enghsh i as in like. The result is a series of spellings that no writer on dialect has ever set down as Scotch. Thus for fly we have two forms, fiay riming with play, and flie; Enghsh fie appears as fay; why as whay; sly as slay; hide as hayd; wife as waife, vary- ing with wife; dying as daying; my as may, varying with my; life as laife, varying with life; white as whayte. There is no uniformity, for we have likewise in dialectal passages the usual 100 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA spellings sire, sides, riders, wine, blind, tied, wife, tyles (for tiles), find, mine. The points of confusion just noted are not unnatural, how- ever. They might readily appear on paper as the legitimate effort of a writer to express a shade of sound that had not yet found its way into general spelling of dialect. No less a student of Scottish word music than Burns tried several spellings in piursuit of the elusive French u sound, represented in many Scotch words by ui. That the present playwright employed this sound in places where it did not belong shows at least that he was familiar with its frequency in the language. It is much more difficult to bring within the compass of rule his use of the suffix -and. It appears as the ending of no less than five tense forms, as follows: beseekand (present indicative); luifand (present participle); luifand (present indicative); misusand (imperfect indicative) ; playeand (present participle) ; liggand (present participle) ; gangand (past participle) ; standand (present participle); dingand (infinitive). It is hard to believe that any man who wrote dialect in this fashion reaUy cared, if he so much as knew, anything about the grammar of the dialect he was dealing with. With all hberal allowance for errors of the printer, the presumption is still strong that these words were sprinkled through the speech with the indefinite idea of creating a flavor, possibly Scotch, certainly grotesque. A second evidence of the writer's imperfect famiharity with Scotch is the presence of various dialectal forms of the same word: For should there is shild (1 per. sing.); stdd (2 per. plu.); Slid (3 per. sing, and 2 per. plu.); sulled (2 per. plu.). For say there is sea (2 per. sing.); sa (2 per. sing.); senu (2 per. plu.; this occurs twice, and may be a misprint); sen (2 per. plu.); senn (2 per. plu.). For if we have gife, guiff, gif; for work, warcke, weark; for more, meare, mare; for from, fra, fray. These differences are not to be accounted for on the supposition that he assigns peculiarities of dialect to certain individuals. The interchanges occur — within the dialect-speaking group, i.e. THE VALIANT SCOT, BY J. W. 101 Wallace, Peg, and the Friar — quite irrespective of the person speaking. Third,- there is the intermingling of English and dialectal forms in speeches supposed to be entirely dialectal. In other words, dialect is not consistently maintained. For example, we have say as well as the dialectal forms sea, sa, sen, senn, senu; your as well as yare; face as weU as feace; shall as well as sail; my as well as may; 4ng as well as -and; old as weU as awd; wife as well as waife; life as well as laife. Fourth, there is a sprinkling of dialectal words famUiar, no doubt, to the London of 1637, but not Scotch; as, lidging (Irish); drae (Lancaster); seafe (Cumberland, Westmoreland, and North Lancaster); thase (Oxford). Fifth, in a few cases the improvised dialectal form, while Scottish in sound, has not in Scotch the meaning assigned to it, but one quite different; as, yare (used for your) is a Scotch word for ready, alert; aid (misprint?) is Scotch for gutter; laife (used for life) is the well known Scotch word for loaf. This, then, is the evidence of the present text on the question of dialect. It corresponds with the historical evidence of the times, and gives us additional reason to beheve that with the early seventeenth century dramatists the writing of dialect was not at all a serious effort to represent provincial speech with scientific accuracy. Vn. The Play in Relation to History The present play is so far removed from close adherence to historic facts, that a very brief review of the historic setting in which the action hes wiU be sufficient. The burning of Lanark by Wallace and a small band of his devoted followers occurred in May, 1297. Scottish tradition makes the act Wallace's revenge for the death of his sweetheart, but modern historians are not united in this view. In June, 1298, the English army under Percy and Chfford invaded Scotland. The battle of the play is more nearly that 102 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA of Falkirk, which was fought in July, 1298, than any other. It is in connection with this battle that we have the tradition of a quarrel over the right of leadership, a quarrel which re- sulted in the defeat of the Scottish army. Of Wallace's journey to France, Mackay' says: "The state- ment of Blind Harry, which has been doubted, that he [Wallace] went to France to the court of PhiUp le Bel, probably in the following year, 1299, has been confirmed by documentary evi- dence; but the minstrel has himself to blame for the doubt, by duphcating it and making the first visit prior to the battle of Falkirk, and apparently after that of Stirling, a point in Wallace's life when there was neither time nor occasion for such a visit." There is a tradition that Wallace went even to Rome to support the cause of BaUol with the Pope, but it lacks confirmation. On the other hand, the absence of all record of Wallace in Scotland from 1299 to 1303 makes it impossible to disprove the rumor. The chroniclers are generally agreed as to the treacherous means employed by the English in the capture of Wallace, and as to Sir John de Menteith's part in the infamous proceeding. The date is 1305. Wyntoun, in 1418, set down Glasgow as the scene of the capture. The conduct of Bruce during this period warrants the uncer- tain character which the dramatist ascribes to him. The rea- son for his unwillingness to cooperate with Wallace Ues chiefly in the fact that the latter was proclaiming himself the represen- tative of BaUol and his cause. During the years in which the action of the play seems to be located, the chronology of Bruce's shifts of attitude is a lamentable story of fluctuation. In 1296 he swore allegiance to Edward I, inspired, no doubt, by their common enmity to BaUol. In 1297 Bruce, with many other Scots, refused to follow Edward to Flanders in excess of legal obligation, joined the revolt of Wallace, and did vigorous work against the English. In July of the same year, at the "capit- ^ For a summary of the facts and traditions concerning the lives of Wal^ lace and Bruce, with bibliographies, see Mackay's articles in the Dictionary of National Biography. THE VALIANT SCOT, BY J. W. 103 ulation of Irvine," he received forgiveness, and again espoused the EngUsh cause. In 1298 he was back, for a short time, on the Scottish side. From that year, however, until 1304, he held aloof from active participation in the affairs of either side. The execution of Wallace occurred in 1305. The brilliant and patriotic part of Bruce's career began after the death of Wal- lace, and lies outside the Umits of the play. VIII. Time Interval of the Play While it is not possible to determine the time interval of the play with mathematical exactness, the breaks in its continuity are really but two in number. The action as far as 1, 256, may be supposed to proceed without appreciable pause. Between 256 and 257 there must elapse sufficient time for Haselrig to make the journey to England; and between 387 and 388, suf- ficient time for his return and for the coming of the Enghsh army. From 388 the act moves immediately to its conclu- sion. The second act follows at once upon the first, and runs its course without interruption. Between Acts II and III there is evidently a considerable lapse of time. What has been the course of the wrecked ves- sel, and of Wallace's movements? The remark of Jeffrey^ "The seas have crossed them that sought to cross the seas," and again about the chest,^ "and 'twas going out of the land," may be taken to mean that the ship was just departing. On the other hand, the first of these speeches may indicate simply the failure to reach port, and the second may refer to the work of a strong ebb tide. Wallace's hunger and exhaustion point to a prolonged struggle with the storm. The change in Selby's and Haselrig's condition, from power to poverty, and the ban- ishment from England of which the former speaks, inchne one to believe that an interval of several months has elapsed since the close of Act II. It is not improbable that the author had » The Valiant Scot, III, 12. 2 Ihid., Ill, 34. 104 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA in mind the return of Wallace from France. Blind Harry, in his description of Wallace's return, makes no mention of a storm, but he tells of Wallace's suffering from lack of food soon after his arrival.' From the beginning of Act III the play proceeds without perceptible break to the conclusion. The meeting of Wallace and Bruce is about two hours after the battle, perhaps by night, and the capture and condemnation of the hero follow immediately. ' Wallace, XI, 553. SIR RALPH FREEMAN'S IMPERIALE CHARLES CLAYTON GUMM I. BlOGKAPHICAL DaTA CONCERNING SiR RALPH FrEEMAN In every age there are a few writers to whom all the excellen- cies are attributed. These men are writers of great genius, and deserve the imiversal homage which they receive. But it is often forgotten that others have done excellently well, and that they too deserve the recognition which justly belongs to merit. That the author of Imperiale belongs to this latter class there can be no doubt. He has not produced a tragedy of transcendent worth, to be sure; and yet that his play stands above mediocrity a rimning glance wiU show. Certainly it deserves a better fate than the total neglect which it has re- ceived at the hands of critics and literary historians. Neither the author nor the play appear in any modem work excepting the Dictionary of National Biography, which contains a brief but erroneous account of the author and his play. The exact time of Sir Ralph Freeman's birth can not be ascertained, nor can that of his death. The various conjec- tures which have been made rest on no authentic facts nor, it seems, do they follow from any warranted premises. Greg assigns his birth to about 1590 and his death to 1655.^ This latter date is obviously wrong; for he was aUve, as we shall see, on March 22, 1665. The other assignments by Bates and Godfrey,^ which place his Ufe between 1610 and 1655, and by the Dictionary of National Biography, which says "he was still alive in 1663," are equally inaccurate. Treatment of the biography of Freeman is made difficult, nay impossible, by the absence of all evidence concerning his ' List of English Plays. 2 The English Drama, A Working Basis. 105 106 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA personal and moral traits. The facts which we have are those appertaining to his pubhc life, and. only inferentially to his habits and character. The dif&culty is enhanced by the exist- ence of another Ralph Freeman who was engaged in pubUc life and who likewise diverted himself by writing verse.* It will be our first duty, then, to disentangle the activities of these two men and reconstruct their family relationship. Ralph Freeman, the lord mayor, was bom in the year 1560. He first appears in the interrogatories for an examination be- fore the ecclesiastical commission April 13, 1581. His career began early; for by the year 1599 he was doing a thriving busi- ness on Colewart Street. In 1622 this Freeman was elected alderman, and in the same year was made governor of the Mer- chants of Muscovy. The following year he became sheriff of London. His mercantile success must have been extraordi- nary, for he offered in the same year, 1623, to advance the king the sum of £55,000. The next five years are taken up in matters pertaining to the business of the Muscovy Company. His pubhc positions can better be discussed later. Sometime shortly before November 6, 1633, he was made lord mayor of London. He died at his home near the Royal Exchange, Lon- don, March 16, 1634.^ Nichols says that Ralph Freeman, the lord mayor, was knighted September 15, 1617.^ But in another place he quotes Chauncey's History of Hertfordshire: "The Civic Magistrate [Ralph Freeman] does not appear to have been knighted; and ' The British Museum Catalogue attributes Epicedion in R . . . Freemanum [R]eipublicae Londinensis Praetorum to Sir Ralph Freeman. This refers to Ralph Freeman, the lord mayor, as is seen by the foUowing entry in the Stationers' Register April 8, 1634, Vol. IV, p. 291. "Entered for his copy under the hands of master weets and Master Aspley warden an Elegy upon the death of the right honorable Ra[l]ph freeman late Lord Mayor of the Citty of London." * Rolls Series, Domestic, 1633-4, p. 276, 383, 514; 1S80-162S, p. 41; 1598-1601, p. 250; 1611-18, p. 280; 1623-25, p. 125, 384; 1628-29, p. 280; 1625-26, p. 452; 1626-27, p. 60; 1628-29, p. 296, 305, 307, 349; 1631-33, p. 218, 136; 1633-4, p. 195, 236, 276, 293, 464; 1634r-S, p. 7, 248; 1637, p. 134; 1626-49, p. 677. Nichols, Progresses of James: Vol. Ill, p. 437; Vol. IV, p. 765-66. ' Progresses of James, Vol. Ill, 437. SIR RALPH freeman's IMPERIALE 107 from that it might be presumed that he declined the honour, but it was usual for the Lord Mayor to go to Court on purpose to receive it about the month of May or June; Mr. Freeman died before that period in his Mayoralty; and we find that his successor, Sir Thomas Maulston, was knighted at Greenwich June 1, 1634."« It is reasonable to suppose Chauncey is right. Had the lord mayor been knighted, some reference to him as "Sir" would have been made either during Freeman's life time or after his death, but no such reference has been foimd. Hence from the date of knighting, the two men of the same name and similar interests can be distinguished. Closely associated with these two in the entries upon the Rolls is one William Freeman. He and Ralph Freeman offer, November 15, 1596, to provide His Majesty with 3,000 quarters of grain at 33 s. and 4 d. per quarter. This Ralph Freeman is the lord mayor; for it would be too . early for a man to be in business who was to Kve till the year 1665. On December 17, 1608, WilUam and Ralph Freeman and Adrian Moore received for five years the office for the pre- emption and transportation of tin, which was extended at the expiration of the term seven and one-half years. This Ralph Freeman is again the lord mayor. There seems to be no reason for the statement in the Dictionary of National Biography that Sir Ralph Freeman held this latter office, and especially so smce the possession of the office is attributed to the influence of Buckingham, into whose family Freeman married. No evi- dence has been found that shows the influence of Buckingham till the year 1618, at which time Sir Ralph succeeds Naunton as master of the requests.' The conjecture of the Dictionary of National Biography that Sir Ralph Freeman was "probably the son of Martin Freeman" seems probable. ^IbU.,Vo\.lY,p.9iSnote. ^ „ ^„, ' Rolls Series, Domestic, 1595-97, p. 307; 1603-10, p. 475; 1611-18, p. 197, 511. 108 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA Martin is connected with William Freeman in business as is shown by the entry February 12, 1612, which records a grant made to them jointly of a certain tract of land to the value of £43 s. 3d. per annum. On November 4, 1619, there is a very significant entry which declares a covenant between the king and one Richard Paules and Stephen Harvey on behalf of Elizabeth and Sir Ralph Freeman, executors of the late Martin Freeman, indemnifying the latter against any loss re- specting certain alum works. This is the strongest fact in sup- port of the father and son relationship. There are other en- tries which may be mentioned briefly. Certain messuages to the value of £13 s. 4 d. per annum were granted to him De- cember 8, 1604, and in 1607 the site or lordship of the Hospital of St. Johns of Jerusalem was sold to him. On December 21, 1608, he joined his brothers, Ralph and William, in the office of farmers of tin. A warrant was issued September 29, 1609, to pay Martin Freeman and others, the contractors for the land of the king's free gift, for the advance of large sums of money: this company the next year received from the king lands in fee simple to the amount of £50,000. He with four others re- ceived, July 27, 1613, a grant of all the customs and subsidies in Ireland for nine years. The last entry shows him to be a member of a company of £3,000 annual income. He died shortly before November 4, 1619.* The inference from the foregoing is that Ralph, the lord mayor, Martin, the father of Sir Ralph, and William Freeman were brothers. Sir Ralph inherited the large estate of his uncle, Ralph Freeman, and the wealth of his father, which certainly must have made him a very rich man. Sir Ralph, the author of Imperiale, entered public life in 1618 as one of the masters of requests in ordinary, and from this time on his public career with a few pauses is continuous. This office, which Freeman continued to hold during his life time, was an important one until the statute 16 Charles I mate- ' Ibid., 1547-80, p. 550; 1603-10, pp. 17, 56, 476, 545, 637: 1611-18, p. 120; 1619-23, p. 90. Sm RALPH freeman's IMPERIALS 109 rially curtailed its powers. There are reasons, however, for believing that he was at no time its most prominent master.' In 1619 he was made a member of a commission for the pur- pose of insuring the observance of the late proclamation con- cerning the manufacture of starch and the reformation of its abuses. A few years later, January, 1622, he received a grant in reversion of one of the auditorships of the imprests in the exchequer, succeeding Sir Francis Gafton and Richard Sutton, and about this same time he received also a reversion of one of the auditorships of the mint, succeeding Sir Thomas Gafton and Henry Stanley. This latter office he held with a few inter- ruptions up to the time of his death, and was from the first its most efficient auditor.^" With his appointment in the following year, 1623, as one of the commissioners of the king's house begins a close relationship with Charles I. The many small offices of honor that were delegated to him indicate the personal regard in which he was held by the king; and other significant evidences of royal con- fidence in him appear, as when, for example, a certain man was pardoned of a crime "because Sir Ralph Freeman affirms the king pities the poor fellow;" and when at another time General Geath wrote Secretary Conway, "Sir Ralph Freeman constantly affirms His Majesty's gracious resolution for WiUiam Robinson, and hopes for the pardon in justification of his own reputation."" At this time Freeman was wealthy enough to be regarded as a likely candidate for the provostship of E'ton College. The Countess of Bedford in a letter to Chamberlain says: "Sir William Beecher is not likely to succeed Thomas Murray as Provost of Eton, but Freeman, a Master of Requests and an ally of Buckingham. I can't tell how to advise Carleton about it, since in these days 'those that are nearest the well-head know not with what bucket to draw' for themselves or his friends." '/Jjd., 1611-18, pp. 511, 514. ^"Ibid., 1619-23, pp. 53, 335. » im., 1619-23, p. 469; 1623-25, pp. 273, 279. 110 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA Freeman apparently had little hopes of getting the provostship; for about the same time he petitioned Buckingham to succeed Sir Henry Wotton at Venice, if the latter should be promoted to the ptovostship of Eton, and that his place, the mastership of requests, should be granted to Sir Albert Norton. He was disappointed in both his ambitions, yet surely not daunted, for the next year he was a strong candidate for a place of even greater honor, the mastership of the rolls. January 3, 1624, Chamberlain writes Carleton: — "Sir Hem-y Wotton is said to be the Provost of Eton, and has resigned his mastership of the Rolls to Sir Ralph Freeman, who has resigned his mastership of Requests to Sir William Beecher." That Freeman became master of the rolls is untrue; for as we shall presently see, he was again an appUcant a year later.^^ In the year 1627 we find the two Ralph Freemans holding commissions for the sale of perishable goods and the disposition of ships under one hundred tons burden, and another with the ■ power to examine persons suspected of having embezzled goods taken at sea from the subjects of France.^' The next few years are taken up with a quarrel with Sir Giles Mompeson concern- ing the office of the imprests and with petitions for the presen- tations of livings. The precise nature of the difference is un- known, yet it is evident that the dispute was of considerable violence. The matter was adjusted by Buckingham, who made the award, it seems, against Freeman. The memorials for the presentation of livings are two in number, one for the living of Ickerton, and the other for the living of Tilihurst, for which Bishop Bowie was a suitor." By 1633 Freeman was a man of substantial wealth, as is evi- denced by the indebtedness of £2,080 to him by the Earl of Northampton and others. The income derived from his offices could not have been very considerable, for the most remunera- i2 76ii., 1623-25, pp. 70, 156; 1619-23, p. 569. ^Ubid., 1626-27, p. 53; 1627-28, p. 181; 1625-19, p. 215. »76«i., 1628-29, p. 341; 1629-31, p. 130;1 626-27, p. 53. There was another Ralph Freeman in Hertfordshire at this time. No clue to his family connections has appeared. sm RALPH freeman's imperiale 111 tive, that of master worker of the mint, paid him but £500 a year. Yet the financial side of the situation must have been of little consequence to him, in view of the facts that his father at death was a member of a company, the income of which was £3000 a year, and that his uncle, the lord mayor, settled his entire estate upon the nephew, which must have been very large, judging from the gifts of £1000 to the poor of North- ampton and £2500 to the Clothworkers Company of London." The following year, 1634, Freeman, with two others, was appointed to the oflSce of searchers and sealers of all foreign hops imported into England. This was followed by another commission, 1635, for the purpose of enforcing the late proc- lamations concerning the regulation of the business of gold and silver thread. The mint in King James's time, the Rolls record, was very profitable, but of late little revenue had been derived from it; "so Sir Thomas Aylesbury and Sir Ralph Freeman undertake what offers they will make for the king's benefit: they have compounded with Cranfield for his patent." His continuance in the o£6ce of master worker of the mint was probably broken from 1632 to 1635, during which period Sir Robert Harby is spoken of as master worker; but after this Freeman and Aylesbury held the office till the Rebellion.i^ The next four years Freeman was busied with the reclamation of land, the making of awards concerning the petition of the poor-home workmen, and the performance of his duties as master of the requests. But in the year 1639 he again appears as a candidate for the office of master of the rolls, and he must have bid fair for the honor, judging from a letter written, March 28, by George Garrard to Viscount Conway: "The Master of the Rolls is dead. A man unthought of, and a very ass is [now] Master of the Rolls, Sir Charles Caesar, a doctor of the civil law, son of Sir Julius. He was the very anvil on which doctors of law of his society played, and was jeered by « Ibid., 1633-34, p. 57; 1641-43, p. 487; 1637, p. 139. Nichols, Progresses of James, III, p. 437. " im., 1634r-S. p. 248; 1635, pp. 178, 18; 1636-37, p. 445; 1631-33, p. 490. 112 STUDIES m ENGLISH DRAMA them all, and I believe the common lawyers will quickly find him out, and not spare him one whit. Sir Ed[ward] Leech was to give £13,000 for the place, £7,000 presently, and £6,000 in May; it passed the king's hand for him, and was left with the Lord Treasurer until he paid in the money, which stop raised new competitors. Sir Thomas Hatton, from my Lady Hatton, offered her house presently to the king and money to boot, so he might be Master of the Rolls. Lord French would have had it, and would have brought in a sergeant, one Reeves, who should have given £14,000 for his place in the Conmion Pleas. Sir Ralph Freeman also offered fair, but this wood-cock, Sir Charles Caesar, has outwitted them all — ^£15,000 for the place, whereof 10,000 presently to go to York, so God give him joy of his place." In consideration of the esteem in which this office was held the disappointment must have been very keen — the defeat being due to wealth alone.^^ During this same year we find two complaints recorded, one against him and the other by him. He is complained of by one Hugh Morrel, who says his petition has been thrust back for fourteen years by Sir Ralph Freeman for his own ends. Freeman himself complains to Charles I of the annulment of a grant of the several impositions on sea coal from Newcastle which was made to him June 20, 1639, with the promise not to recover the same and to compensate for any damage therein by act of parliament. The answer to the complaint is not recorded. Possibly the Puritans were reminding his Majesty of other things.^' The absence of entries for the ensuing seven years is explained by a statement in a petition by Freeman in 1661 for the office as commissioner of excise. The entry reads: "He said he served the late king in England, Lreland, and Scilly Isles; was carried to Portsmouth and threatened with execution; was re- leased by the Articles of Scilly; but again forced to fly the Kingdom for joining His Majesty at Worcester." These facts 1' Ibid., 1637, pp. 189, 139; 1638-39, pp. 289, 623. " Ibid., 1641-43, pp. SO, 51; 1660-61, p. 386. SIR RALPH freeman's IMPERIALE 113 are sufficient to furnish the imagination with food for flight) but we need here be reminded only of his loyalty to the king and the hardships which he endured for the cause.^' On October 1, 1646, Freeman petitioned the Government to be allowed to compound on the Oxford Articles for delinquency in assisting the late king. The petition was granted, and he, being a master of the requests, was officially attended from his home in East Betchwood, Surrey, to Oxford. This was the first of seven distinct fines purposed by the Puritan Govern- ment. The sequestration of his estate was suspended January, 1648, on pa)mient of half his fines, but on March 8 additional ones were laid. His fines were all paid and the sequestration was discharged on May 3 of this year.^" At this time the name of the son of Freeman appears in a warrant that permits him to remain at his father's house by giving £1000 bond to appear before the House of Commons within six weeks and to do nothing thereafter to the disserv- ice of parliament.^^ The estate of Freeman was discharged in full the second time June 6, 1650. At this time the old lease of the coal farm at Newcastle was surrendered and a new one was granted to him and others, who borrowed on security £20,000 which was to be paid out of the profits of the lease. This promise of peace, however, was not to be permanent, for in August, 1655, a war- rant was issued by the Protector and Council to Freeman that he should come to London and stay a month, the late procla- mation notwithstanding. He does not seem to have given the new government further anxiety.^^ On the return of the Stuarts to the throne Freeman peti- tioned to be restored to the offices from which he had been ousted. His petition was granted, for in the following year, 1661, he appointed one William Boyle chief refiner and worker ^Ubid., 1661-62, p. 222. 2° Committee for Compounding, 1643-60, part II, p. 1522. " Rolls Series, Domestic, 1648-49, p. 312. 22 Ibid., 1655, p. 594; 1656-57, p. 584. Committee for Compounding, part III, p. 2261. 114 STUDIES m ENGLISH DRAMA in the mint. He petitioned next that he be reimbursed for the damages sustained to his coal interests at Newcastle during the rebelhon; and with one other for the restitution of the office of commissioner of excise his petitions end.^' The remainirg years of Freeman's public career were taken up chiefly in his duties as master worker of the mint. Possibly he had other duties of an official character, if so much may be inferred from an entry in Pepys' Diary, May 12, 1660: "By us, in the Lark frigate, Sir Ralph Freeman and some others, going from the king to England, come to see my Lord, and so onward on their voyage."^* In 1662 Evelyn says Freeman was an old man.^^ The long period of constant public service was soon to end. For the sake of completeness the last entries upon the Rolls, which bring this sketch to a close, may be stated briefly. On May 13, 1663, he was commissioned to deliver a certain amount of gold to one Stephen Fox; in December he was allowed £500 per an- num in addition to a certain percentage of the coinage. In February of the following year he proposed a new silver coinage according to a pattern which he had previously submitted. At this time he is spoken of as master of the requests, which means that he held that office for forty-seven years. An order was issued to him on December 24, 1663, to coin all the money brought into the mint by the Royal African Company, and another on June 25, 1664, to allow one John Patterson £500 per annum. The last warrant issued to Free- man was March 22, 1665, which allowed three pennyweights of troy in the pound as a remedy for the shortage in the 3s. and 4d. pieces.^' After this date no further records of Sir Ralph Freeman appear. From these facts we can easily infer that Freeman was a " Ibid., 1660-61, pp. 138, 386; 1661H52, pp. 219, 222. " Vol. I, p. 58, ed. Braybrooke. 2' The Diary of John Evelyn, Vol. II, p. 1S4, ed. Wheatley. 2' Rolls Series, Domestic, 1661-62, pp. 369, S8S; 1662-63, p. 358; 1663-64, pp. 41. 262. Ibid., 1663-64, p. 625; 1664r^5, pp. 217, 266. SIR RALPH freeman's IMPERIALE 115 man of sterling qualities and enjoyed a good reputation. He is never referred to in the chatty letters of the time other than in terms of respect. The contest for the mastership of the rolls which occasioned a rich assortment of slanderous charges, did not bring forth one word against Freeman's character. In several entries' the Rolls record instances in which he manifested a deep solicitude for his pledged word. His honesty is testified to by the increasing number of offices' which were entrusted to his care. This quality will appear in especially strong light when we come to consider the use which he made of Seneca's tragedies. That he was industrious is obvious. His public career begins early and continues almost without a break for forty-seven years, the time diuring which he was master of the requests. The positions which he held ranged from that of a commissioner to ensure the observance of a proclamation con- cerning the manufacture of starch in the city of London to that of master worker of the mint. Along with his official duties he had a large private business, which included the ex- ploitation of the Newcastle coal fields, the manufacture of alum, and the reclamation of public lands. These interests which he inherited from his uncle and from his father made him certainly one of the wealthiest men of his time. His large fortune, doubtless, had much to do with his success as an office seeker, which he most surely was. Yet we are in- cUned to believe that the dignity and judgment which are so marked in Imperiale were efficient qualities in the service of the King. n. The History and Sources of Imperiale The literary history of Freeman is, if we conceive it rightly, a simple one. He familiarized himself with the ancients as was customary for those of "the gentle passions" to do. Aris- totle, Ovid, Seneca, and Plutarch of the "ancients" were care- fully read, and Delrius and Heinsius of his own day.^ Of 'Aristotle, Plutarch, Delrius, and Heinsius are quoted in the "argu- ments." Verse from Ovid is used as a lemma for the frontispiece. For influence of Seneca see infra. 116 STXTODES EST ENiSLISH DKAMA these Seneca was after Freeman's own heart. The philoso- phy of this last of the ancients so affected him that in 1634 he tried a metrical version of Consolatio ad Marciam? This at- tempt at poetry being somewhat encouraging and his interests in Seneca deepening, he then turned to a close study of Seneca's tragedies, the results of which in 1639 he embodied in a tragedy. The weighty issues of the day diverted him from further study of Seneca; but soon after the Restoration he returned to him and translated into verse De Brevitate Vitae. This, in short, is the story of Freeman as an author. We shall consider here only the tragedy, to which we must now address our attention. The date of the composition of Imperiale cannot be definitely determined, but a conjecture may be made that it was written between 1637 and 1639. This latter date is certain, as the entry in the Stationers^ Register, March 1, 1638-39, shows: " r. Martii 1638 [i.e., 1639]. Master Harper. Entred for his Copy vnder the hands of Master Baker and Master Mead war; den a booke called A tragedy called Imperiale." Freeman's study of Seneca, which had its fullest expression in Imperiale, began five years before: "10 Martii, 1633. Master Seile. Entred for his Copy vnder the hands of Master Baker and Master Aspley warden a booke called Lucius Anneus Seneca the Philosopher his booke of Consolation to Marcia translated into an Enghsh Poem by Sir Ra[lph] Ffreeman.'" A large portion of these five years must have been consumed in the reading and assimilation of the tragedies of Seneca; for Free- man was not a professional writer but a gentleman who turned his attention to hterary studies during moments of leisure. The quotations in the preface to Imperiale show that he studied both the function and the technique of tragedy. In the dedi- cation to his friend John Morris he declares that he never in- tended his play should appear before "the open World." The quahties of selection and repression which characterize ^ See infra. ^ See Supra. SIR RALPH freeman's IMPERIALE 117 his style give further evidence that his work was done slowly. Considering the habit of the author's mind and the character of his work, three years is not an unreasonable time to assign to preparation. The main plot of Imperide rests upon a story which is known to French, Spanish, and Itahan legendary history. Lang- baine^ pointed out long ago the chief sources: Beard, Theatre of God's Judgments f Goulart, Histoires Admirables et Memordbles de Nostra Temps;^ Bandello, Novelle;'' and Wanley, Wonders.^ All these were equally accessible to Freeman.' The ones he did actually use cannot be determined, because the plot of Imperiale could be taken from any one of these sources without omitting a single incident in the play. The most natural ver- sion for Freeman to select would be that which offered the greatest ready-made dramatic motivation, which is unques- tionably the story in Bandello's novella. The narratives of Beard and Wanley are negligible. Goulart's version, which is here appended, abridges Bandello's novel and affords an excel- lent study in Freeman's use of raw material. "La servitude extr&ne veut estre doucement mani^e, autrement elle conue un horrible feu de desespoir. Un gentilliomine Espagnol nommfi don Riviero demeurant en I'isle Majorque, entre autres esclaves avoit un More contre lequel s'estant un jour courrouc6 fort asprement, il luy donna tant de trais de chorde, que le pauvre esclave fut sur poinct de mourir. Mais [estant] eschapp6 il feignit plus d'affection de bien servir son maistre que paravant. Riviero avoit une forteresse oil n'y avoit que une avenue bien gardfc d'un profound foss6 & d'un pont levis, lequel hausse ceste place estoit imprenable forrs S, coups de canons, ayant la mer qui le battoit au pied d'un roc sur ce qui elle estoit bastie. Un jour Riviero estant aUe loin de son logis h. la chasse, le More voyant I'occasion & le temps venu de se venger, sur tout pour ce que la Dame, fenune de Riviero, qui avoit une maison au vil- lage prochain, estoit venue en la forteresse, pour [voir] sur la mer les gal6res qui y flottoyent, & avoir le plaisir de I'air: se jette apr6s & hausse le pont, * An Account of the Dramaiick Poets, p. 226-227. spt. I,p. 427;pt. II, p. 45. 6 p_. 35Sff. ' Vol. V, p. 274, trans, by John Payne. * The Wonders of the Little World, chap. XI, p. 34. [But not published until 1678.— £d.l ' Bandello's Novelle were translated by Belleforest in 1580. 118 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA empoigne la dame & la lie a un gros coffre en une saUe basse pr6s un petit lict verd, & enfenne ses trois enfans qu'elle avoit menez avec elle, dans une chambre prochaine: puis il la viole honteusement, & comma au cry d'elle & des enfans les villageois fusscnt allez querir Riviero, qui acourt en diUgence, le More ne se souciant de menace ni de prifires, luy jette par les fenestres sur le roc son fils aisnfi aag6 d'environ sept ans, lequel fut aussi tost escras6 que tombe. Le pauvre gentilhomme rfiduit comme au d&es- poir essaye d'adoucir le cruel More pour sauver le reste; & le More feint y entendre, mais S, condition que Riviero se coupast le nez, pour reparation des torts qu'il avoit fait k son esdave. Pensant gaigner quelque chose en se mutilant ainsi au gr6 d'un qui se glorifioit d'avoir honny sa femme, & qui venoit de meurtiir si crueUement son fils aisnfi, n&intmoins se coupa le nez, dont I'esclave merveilleusement joyeux au lieu de rabatre quelque chose de sa ffilonnie desmesur^e se mocquant de tout ce qu'il avoit promis, & de la simplesse de son maistre, empoigne incontinent les deux autres petits enfans par les pieds, les froisse de plusieurs coups qu'il donne de leurs testes contre les muraiUes puis les jette sur le rocher apr^ leur aisne. Et se souciant aussi peu des cris de la populace amass^e & ce terrible spec- tacle, que de ceux de son maistre, empoigne la Dame, laquelle il esgorge en pr&ence de tons, & prficipite le corps du plus haut de la tour en bas. Quo y fait, escumant de rage, il se jette la teste devant sur le roc du cost6 de la mer & se brise en pieces, finissant promptement sa d6test6e vie: al'ex- trfeme regret de Riviero, qui n'avoit peu sauver aucun des siens ni chas- tier ce furieux esclave selon ses dto6rites. Plusieurs ontdescrit cestehis- toire en Espagnol, Italien & Franjois fort amplement; mais je n'ay peu ni voulu la faire plus longue, estant si estrange que je tremble toutes les fois que j'y pense. This is a powerful story, but it does not contain all the mate- rial that is necessary for a complete dramatic action. The constructive principles of the narrative and the drama are very different: the narrative emphasizes the designs and the conse- quences, while the drama stresses the intermediate stage, the unfolding of the designs. In this lies the difference of the kathar- sis in the two species of Kterature. When we see the threads spun before our eyes which must eventually work the de- struction of the unwitting victim, the feehng of pity is con- verted into that of fellow-suffering. In the story we pity Ri- viero and in the drama we are fellow-sufferers with Imperiale. This difference of effect is brought about by introducing another plot, which affords the opportunity for the development of the designs of the ffrst. SIR RALPH freeman's IMPERIALE 119 The second story may be summarized as follows: Two Italian families of noble lineage had been bitter enemies for years. The house Salimbino had destroyed the estate and the family of Montaninos, with the exception of Don Charles and his sister Angelica. Charles was threatened with death by a greedy merchant, to whom he owed a large sum of money which he was unable to pay. In the meantime the beauty and excellent quahties of Angelica had infatuated Anseamo, a Salimbino. Being an ancient enemy of her house, he felt he had no claim to her hand without an atonement for the past. The financial difficulties of Charles afforded him the opportunity, which he accepted by paying off secretly the entire debt owed by Charles. For this great kindness Charles felt that his sister, AngeUca, was the only adequate reward. After much vacillation between duty to her brother and the demands of love, she reconciled the two hostile houses by her marriage.^" The plot of Imperiale, with a few minor exceptions, is now accounted for. We have two Italian families of noble rank at enmity with each other. The son of one house is in love with the lady of the other. The credulity of the lover is used by the slaves to avenge themselves upon one house, and they turn vile beasts to inflict vengeance themselves upon the other. The names of characters in a play are usually of no consequence but in this case they give historical coloring: Spinola, Justin- iano, Doria, and Imperiale were characters well-known to contemporary Genoan life." The name Angehca was carried over from the original. As to the question whether Imperiale was ever staged, there is no evidence. This fact has led Genest to a negative inference in the matter i'^ but the only warranted attitude is that of Langbaine who said, "I know not whether the Play was acted."" "See Fenton, Tragical Discourses, Discourse I; Painter, Palace of Pleasure, Vol. Ill, p. 288, The Thirtieth NoueU. " See L. G. O. F. De Brfquigny, Evolutions of Genoa. " History of the Stage, Vol. X, p. 129. '■^ An Account of the Dramatick Poets, p. 226-227. 120 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA III. Senecan Inflitence in Imperiale The influence of one author upon another is a matter in which one can least afford to dogmatise. It is generally hazard- ous to say that a certain line or idea was taken from any one source, unless there is more than a passing resemblance. The facts which determine the originality of an author should make a plain case. The danger of a false imputation is here emphasized in order that the pronounced influence under which we believe Imperiale to have been written may be given a judicious consideration. As we stated above, the only other works of Freeman, be- sides Imperiale, are the metrical translations of Seneca's Con- solatio ad Marciam in 1634 and De Brevitate Vitae, the second edition in 1664. In the preface to Imperiale he quotes from the introduction to Delrius's edition of the tragedies of Seneca; and in the play, IV, i, 22, he speaks of "that Hercules enrag'd," which from its context obviously refers to Hercules Furens. This is quite evidence enough to cause one to suspect the influ- ence of Seneca upon Imperiale. The extent of the influence we shall now examine in detail. The theme of Seneca's tragedies is that of revenge accom- panied by horrors, lust, and shocking murders. The dramatic personages are rather symbols of abstract moods than human creatures acted upon by human passions. Reflective passages and dialogues weighted with philosophic thought abound.' The manner of dialogue is insipid, lifeless, wooden, and largely characterized by stichomithia. The style is sententious, stilted, and bombastic. At times the infernal machinery of mythology is taxed to its uttermost to supply images sufficiently horrible to express the passions of his characters. The chorus punctu- ates the acts with prophecies, maxims, and commonpkces of philosophy.^ These traits are equally characteristic of Imperiale. The ' CunlifEe, The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy, p. 20. * See Fischer, Zur Kunstenlwickhmg der englischen TragSdie, pp. 9jf. SIR RALPH freeman's IMPERIALE 121 slaves, Molosso and Sango, plot to wreak vengeance upon their masters, who have maltreated them. Their first victim is Fran- cisco, the son of Spinola, who is persuaded that if he should disguise himself as Imperiale, he will be able to take Angelica a willing captive. In consequence he is murdered by Verdugo, the assassin, who has been hired by Spinola to murder Imperiale, The slaves avenge themselves upon Imperiale by dishonoring both his wife and daughter and then murdering them in his presence. To prevent himself from witnessing the deed Im- periale tears out his eyes. The slaves then kill themselves. That such a theme is Senecan is obvious. As Fischer has observed, the characters of Seneca do not Uve as true dramatic personages.* So here, the archvillain, Molosso, commits the most atrocious crime conceivable, and yet he does not horrify us. It is not that his crimes are so criminal that they become aesthetic nor that they are so brutal that they become impossible, but simply that we fail to feel any personality whatever. His associate, Sango, is a mere foil. Imperiale, around whom our sympathies would like to center, repels us by consenting to a treacherous murder of Spinola. At the very first Spinola strikes us with curious interest; but when his plot to murder Imperiale has turned boomerang, we are rapt with amazement at his command of infernal history. Justiniano is hardly more than the mouthpiece of a stoic philosophy. After Verdugo's defense of the trade of murder, we feel a real interest in him; but when we reflect how unnat- ural such a disquisition is in the mouth of a professional assas- sin, he too passes. Doria is a rather good lover, and yet when he swears that he will kill himself we hardly feel that a human life is in jeopardy. The characters, Honoria and An- geUca, are types of pure, modest, wellbred womanhood. Had, Angelica been left to grow instead of being reared on the stoic catechism, she might have become an ideal heroine. The other personages need no mention. For the most part the qualities with which each character is endowed are so few that they ' lUd., p. 50. 122 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA might be analyzed and catalogued. The power of the play- lies, not in the conflict of personalities, but in the clash of situations. A cursory examination of the play will show to what extent reflective passages and dialogues weighted with philosophic thought abound. There is scarcely a character that does not attempt to justify his acts by some more or less formal process of deductive reasoning. A good example of the species of lawyers' brief with which Freeman furnishes his characters is that of the assassin, Verdugo, in Act II, sc. v. He begins by moralizing upon the power of weapons to "frustrate Provi- dence," saying that neither fortress nor sanctuary can safeguard a man against the murderer who tempers his actions with judg- ment and resolution. The assassin renders real service, not only to the individual by keeping the insolent in awe and se- curing personal safety, but to the "pubHck States of Italy" by deterring men "from giving and from suffering affronts." He does not murder gradually as do the lawyers, doctors, and usurers, but by dispatching unexpectedly he is "more pitiful;" "for all the Ul of death is apprehension." Lastly, his "hand of justice is not partiall:" he "may do as much for Spinola himselfe." The crude and obvious character of Freeman's stichomitkia may be seen from the following passages: Spi. What is there that should wound an active spirit Like base contempt? Just. The guilt of one base act. Spi. Should we not then be jealous of our fame? Jtist. If we within find cause of jealousie. Spi. Reports may brand, although they be untrue. Just. Yes, those that take their honour upon trust. Spi. Our honour by opinion must subsist. (I, ii, 55-61.) Hon. Cassandra's true predictions were despis'd. Imp. And well they might, had Troy bin provident. Hon. Many at length deplore their unbeliefe. Imp. But more lament their rash credulity. Bon. Future events by dreams have been reveal'd. (I, iv, 52-57.) SIR RALPH freeman's IMPERIALE 123 A glaring instance of the stilted and bombastic style and of the use made of infernal history is afforded in the following speech of Spinola, after receiving the news of his son's murder: Ye Furies, active ministers of hell, That have your heads invironed with Snakes, And in your cruell hands beare fiery scourges, Lend me your bloudy torches to finde out, And punish th' authour of my dear sons murther: Assist Megaera with a new revenge, Such as even thou would'st feare to execute: Let a vast sea of bloud ore-flow his house. And never ebbe till I shall pitty him; Ease now th' infemall ghosts, remove the stone From th' Attick thiefe, and lay it on his shoulders; Let the swift stream deceive his endless thrift; And let his hands winde the imquiet wheele. That hourly tortures the Thessalian King: Let Vultures tire upon his growing Liver, But let 'hem nere be tir'd; and siuce there is One of the fifty Danaan sisters wanting, Let 'hem admit that man into her roome. And with their Pitchers only load his armes: How am I sure 'tis he? or if it be. It is the Law of Retribution, And is but just, my conscience tels me so: Hence childish conscience; shall I live his scorne. Or the whole Cities Pasquill: I abhor it. Were he protected by the Thunderer, I'ld snatch him from his bosome, and in spite Of his revengeful! thunder, throw him quick Into the throat of the infemall dog; Or if that monster be not yet releast. Since great Alcides drag'd him in a chaine Through th' amaz'd townes of Greece; Enceladus That with his earth-biead flames affrighted heaven, Rather than he shall scape, shall fire the world: But I delay, and weare away the time With empty words: why do I call for Furies, That beare in mine own breast a greater fury Than Acheron and night did ever hatch? He dart my selfe like winged Lightning on him; Have I no friend? (IV, ii.) 124 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA The resemblances to Seneca in style, choice of theme, con- ception of characters, and construction of plot, are of them- selves convincing, but the evidence does not end here. The similar situations and the adapted or translated passages are so numerous that Imperiale becomes literally a Senecan mosaic. The extent of this indebtedness will be shown by considering the acts in their order.'* Act I ii, 55 _^. — ^Justiniano tells Spinola that a wrong to one's honor cannot be avenged; this same right Amphitryon denies to Hercules {Hercules Furens, 1185-1191).^ iv, 19 jff. — The dreams of Honoria and Angelica in which they anticipate the heinous deeds of the slaves have many parallels in Seneca.^ Imperiale's explanation of their dreams is the same as Nutrix offers for those of Poppaea (Octavia, 740-756).' Act II i, 15_^. — Francisco cites the power of Cupid among the goats to explain his own infatuation: Phaedra for a similar purpose uses the same allusions {Phaedra, 186-194). iv, 25-28. — Molosso says to Sango of Imperiale, To let him live, and feele himselfe so wretched, That he shall seek and sue for absent death, Is a revenge becomes me, and I'll have it *The reader is referred to the Notes for supplementary evidence of Senecan influence. [These are not reprinted in this volume. — Ed.] ' For illustratious of the check and balance scheme which prevails in Imperiale see Oedipus and Antigone in Phoenissae; Phaedra and Nutrix in Phaedra; Oedipus and Creon in Oedipus; Andromache and Senex in Troades; Medea and Nutrix in Medea; Clytemestra and Nutrix in Agamem- non; Alcmena and Philoctetes in Hercules Oetaeus; and Nero and Seneca in Octavia. « Thyestes, 434^144, 9S7-960; Octavia, 719-739. ' That Seneca did not write Octavia and possibly not Hercules Oetaeus has no bearing in the matter; the edition which Freeman used had both of these in it. For question of authorship see Schanz, Geschichte der rSmi- schen Litteratur, III, ii, 2, 38-61 in I. Miiller's Handbuch der klassischen A Itertumswissenschaft, SIR RALPH TREEMAN'S IMPERIALE 125 This same method is adopted by Atreus to punish his brother Thyestes. Sat. Quonam ergo telo tantus utetur dolor? Atr. Ipso Thyeste. {Thyestes, 258-259.) Act III i) 25 Jf. — The cautions that AngeUca gives Nugella about dallying with one's honor certainly echo those of Nutrix to Phaedra: Quisquis in primo obstitit Pepulitque amorem, tutus ac victor fuit; Qui blandiendo dulce nutrivit malum, Sero recusat ferre quod subiit jugum. {Phaedra, 132-135.) Act IV i, 21-23. — Evagrio in describing the conduct of Spinola says He vents His fury often in Poetick straines, And seems to be that Hercules enrag'd .... Either H erodes Fur ens or Hercules Oetaeus is here referred to; for in the following speech Spinola not only vents his fury in the manner of Senecan characters in like circumstances, but he employs the same mythological allusions: a grouping that could hardly have been avoided by one so saturated with Seneca's tragedies.* iii, 30^. — This masque is a very close adaptation of the mar- riage song in praise of the nuptials between Jason and Creusa. Et tu, qui facibus legitimis ades, Noctem discutiens auspice dextera Hue incede gradu marcldus ebrio, Praecingens roseo tempora vinculo. Et tu quae, gemini praevia temporis, Tarde, stella, redis semper amantibus: Te matres, avide te cupiunt nurus Quamprimum radios spargere lucidos. ' For passage see supra, p. 123. Illustrations of this grouping may be found in Phaedra, 1228/.; Agamemnon, 12/.; Hercules Oetaeus, 942 f. ' 126 STXTDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA Concesso, juvenes, ludite jurgio, Hinc illinc, juvenes, mittite carmina: Kara est in dominos justa licentia. Candida thyrsigeri proles generosa Lyaei, Multifidam jam tempus erat succendere pinum: Excute sollemnem digitis marcentibus ignem. Festa dicax fundat convicia fescenninus, Solvat turba jocos. {Medea, dl-U and 107-114.) ActV V, 14 f. — The dialogue between Imperiale and Honoria, in which she relates the shocking outrage committed by Molosso, reminds one of a similar situation and dialogue between Phae- dra and Theseus.' V, 46-47. — Molosso laments to Imperiale that he has "so narrow a Stage To Act my vengeance on, as but two women." This is very suggestive of Medea's wish that she had given birth to foxu-teen children instead of two, that by killing them she might increase the punishment of Jason.^" V, 55-58. — ^The first of the following passages is for the most part a translation of the second: Im. Alas poor souls, what crime have they committed? Mol. They are both thine Imperial, that's their crime, Which cannot be washt off, but with their blood. Thy. Quid liberi meruere — Atr. Quod fuerant tui. Thy. Natos parenti — Atr. Fateor et, quod me juvat, Certos. (Thyestes, 1100-1103.) V, 82-85. — Compare the following passages: Imp. Hold, hold, I beg but respite to depart. Mol. So would the joy of our revenge depart. It is the height of our triumphant glory, That thou shalt see 'hem die, cast thine eyes up. ' Phaedra, 864r-902. ^<^ Medea, 954-956 and 1009/. SIR RALPH freeman's IMPERIALE 127 Jas. Infesta, memet perime. Med. Misereri jubes. Bene est, peractum est. plura non habui, dolor, Quae tibi litarem. lumina hue tumida alleva, Ingrate Jason (Medea, 1018-1021.) V, 90. — Rather than see his wife and daughter murdered, Im- periale tears out his eyes. This, of course, recalls the like deed by Oedipus." V, 93-96. — Then Imperiale cries out So stall the Sun and Moon, heavens rawling eyes. Drop from their spheres at the worlds generall ruine T'avoid the spectacle which suggests the elaborate lamentation of the chorus in Thyestes, who feared, after the horrible crime perpetrated by Atreus against Thyestes, lest the whole fabric of the universe should dissolve into fragments, or lapse into eternal chaos. '^ The draft upon the different tragedies of Seneca is so great in the sixth scene that it becomes almost a compilation. vi, 22-27. — Doria upon hearing of the outrage and death of his sweetheart raves: Where am I now, in fruitful Italy? Or in Hircania, where there's nothing seene But horrid monsters, and perpetual snow? O wickedness that no age will believe. And all Posterity deny! malicious fate This is obviously a reminiscence of the Messenger's speech in which he relates that Atreus has duped Thyestes into eating the flesh of his own sons: Quaenam ista regio est? Argos et Sparte, pios Sortita fratres, et maris gemini premens Fauces Corinthos, an feris Hister fugam Praebens Alanis, an sub aetema nive Hjrrcana tellus an vagi passim Scythae? Quis hie nefandi est eonscius monstri locus? {Thyestes, 627-632.) " Phoenisae, 91, and Oedipus, 954. " Thyestes, 789-884. 128 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA vi, 58-61. — Doria says to Justiniano, who has just pre- vented him from committing self-murder, It is not worse To kill liim that unwilling is to die, Than t' hinder him that's willing. This is a translation of an excuse which Oedipus ofEers to Anti- gone in justification of his attempt to take his own life, qui cogit mori Nolentem in aequo est quique properantem impedit. {Phoenissae, 98-99.) vi, 61-63. — ^Justiniano replies, If thou kill'st Thyselfe, thereby thou dost confesse a guilt. Dor. The guilty seldom inflict punishment Upon themselves This was intended, doulDtless, as a translation of Nulr. Nocens videri, qui mori quaerit, cupit. Dejan. Mors innocentes sola deceptos facit. (Hercules Oetaeus, 889-890.) vi, 68-71. — Then Justiniano says in answer to Doria, It is not as thou think'st renowned Doria, A vertue to hate life; but to endure These weighty strokes of Fortune valiantly. This is a translation of Antigone's reply to Oedipus, non est, ut putas, virtus, pater, Timere vitam, sed mails ingentibus Obstare nee se vertere ac retro dare. (Phoenissae, 190-192.) vi, 115-119. — Spinola after witnessing the sad lot of Imperi- ale says: Thy sad story Would melt a flinty heart into compassion; Procrustes or the wild Inhabitants Of horrid Caucasus are mild to these. SIR RALPH freeman's IMPERIALE 129 The allusion here is to that passage in which Thyestes begs his brother Atreus for death, Tale quis vidit nefas? Quis inhospitalis Caucasi rupem asperam Heniochus habitans quisve Cecropiis metus Terris Procrustes? {Thyestes, 1047-1050.) vi, 164^176. — ^These two closing speeches are modeled closely upon the two concluding speeches in Hercules Furens. The extensive use which Freeman mkde of Seneca may well excite astonishment. The plot, characters, style, and animus of the play are all deep-dyed Senecan. He invents no scenes for dramatic relief, and throws in no bits of diverting humor: everything is stressed or repressed according to his model. In fertility of invention and felicity in creating dramatic personali- ties, two of the most indispensable assets of a pla3rwright, he exhibits no power or promise. The play has every mark of a dilettante in letters. It was doubtless the product of classi- cal reading and general interest in literature, at that time the prevailing attitude of men "of the gentle passions." And yet, despite all its short-comings, we read this old tragedy with pleasure. The steady, equable flow of the rhythm, the order and majesty of thought, the rapid succession of thrilling, start- ling clashes of incidents, and the harrowing grief and desolation at the end, all unite to make Imperiale a moving tragedy. The last word, however, shall be given to that estimable old critic, Langbaine, who has passed upon the play the only critical judgment that we possess. He says, "I know not whether this Play was acted; but certainly it far better deserved to have appeared on the Theatre than many of our modern Farces that have usurped the Stage, and deposed its lawful Monarch, Tragedy The Catastrophe of this Play is moving as most Tragedies of this Age, and therefore our Author chose a proper Lemma for the Frontispiece of his Play, in that verse of Ovid, Omne Genus Scripti gravitate Tragoedia vincit."^ " An Account of the Dramalick Poets, p. 226-227. THE CENCI STORY IN LITERATURE AND IN FACT CLARENCE STRATTON I. The Cenci Story in Literature To the Italian the tragedy of the Cenci, with the murder of Francesco, the execution of Beatrice, and the overthrow of this great family, means more than it does to a foreigner. The fellow countrymen of the Cenci see in the history of this family more than a human development, more than a just, fitting expia- tion for crime, wickedness, and rapine. Nor is the story familiar to the cultured classes, the readers, alone. The valet of Shel- ley recognized at once the picture of the beautiful, young, and unhappy Beatrice, which hung in his master's room.' In the Itahan quarters of large cities in America, paper-back pam- phlets are sold containing the popular account of Beatrice Cenci.^ If thus the common people know the story, can recognize its chief character, what is the story's significance to them? To the group of men who hved through th'e five days of Milan, who watched for years the hated Austrian uniforms in the cafes at Venice, to the followers of Garibaldi, to the Car- bonari, this tragedy means the beginning of Italian Uberty. They see in the appeal of Beatrice to the Pope for protection against her unnatural father, in the Pontiff's neglect of her plea, in her subsequent redress and vengeance, the first daring stroke against Papal domination. They see the abuse of power in the ease with which Francesco Cenci bought his immunity from the consequences of his crimes. In the activity with which the Church prosecuted the girl "who sent back to hell the soul that belonged there,"* in its vacillating between the ' Shelley. The Cenci. Introduction. 2 Beatrice Cenci, Racconto Storico. Firenze. 1897. This contains also, Ultime Ore di B. Cenci, Ottava Rima di Quintilio Cosimi. ' Swinburne. Studies in Prose ani Poetry. Les Cenci. 130 THE CENCI STORY 131 desire for the family's vast wealth and the doubt raised by the great lawyer Farinaccio, they see the corruption that was sub- sequently forced upon the country, the corruption that came to such an ignominious end in 1870. (Here was a pure young girl, who killed a ravisher in the defense of her honor, unjustly swept away by the cupidity and rapacity of a clerical hierarchy .0 On the contrary, others see a great church organization stol- idly, impartially carrying out the decrees of the law, as would Justice herself, blindfolded, with no consideration of the par- ties concerned, judging by the facts alone. These people con- tend that the sentence of death on the conspiring wife, son, and \ daughter is an example of the restraining power, the control- Qing influence of the Papal Court. They review the facts. A girl kills her own father. When she is tried, it is claimed that she did the deed in self defense. But she will not acknowledge her shame; even the question dure can wring from her no more than an agonized enigmatical sentence: "Free me from the cords; and what I should keep silent, I wiU keep silent;" — a sentence which might mean that she repeated the accusation against her father, or that she admitted her own guilt.^ The facts just related form the plots of all the versions of the IfsCenci story before 1864, whether in Italian, French, or EngUsh. These are as follows : (1) Shelley, P. B., The Cenci, 1819. (2) Lan- der, W. S., Five Scenes, 1853. (3) Stendhal, Les Cenci, 18557 in which is translated the following MS. >(4) Histoire Veritable de la Mort de Jacques et B. Cenci, et de Lucrbce Petroni Cenci, leur belle-mere, executes pour crime de parricide samedi dernier 11 septembre 1599, sous le regne de ndtre saint p&re le pape Clement VIII Aldobrandini. (5) Geschichte der Hinrichtung der B. Cenci_ und ihrer Familie unter Papst Clemens VIII in Rom (Vienne, 1789.) (6) Malartie, A. de, Relation de la Mort de Giacomo et B. Cenci et de Lucrbce Petroni Leur Belle-mtre (Paris, 1828). * For this view v. F. D. Guerrazzi, Beatrice Cenci. ' Torrigiani, Clemenle VIII e il Processo delta B. Cenci, p. 179. "Sciog- lieteme dalla corda, e quello che dovr6 tacere, tacerS," il che significa, "lo confesserd il vcao delitto, ma non ne pubblicherd mai la causa; io morird piuttosto che dire io stessa d'essere stita violata." Bertolotti, F. Cenci e la sua Famiglia, 1879, pp. 125, 145. 132 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA (7) Vita di B. Cenci, tratta dal Manoscritto Antico, con Anno- tazioni sul Processo e Condanna (Rome, 1849). (8) Custine, M. de, B. Cenci, tragbdie (Paris, 1833). (9) Niccolini, G. B., B. Cenci, tragedia (Firenze, 1844). (10) Carbone, G., Beatrice Cenci, Dramma (Pistoia, 1853). (11) Guerrazzi, F. D., B. Cenci, Storia del Secolo XVI (Pisa, 1851). The account by Guerrazzi, a well known treatment in Italian and in English translation (by Scott, C. A., London, 1858) is an example of the ordinary historical novel with a purpose. The book was written in the middle of the nineteenth centui-y with the avowed intention of arousing interest in the cause of Itahan liberty, in stimulating enthusiasm for the land subdued under a foreign army and an apathetic Papal head. Though the delineations of the father and the Pope are not overdone, the story is mainly fanciful. That virtue which knows no creeds, that innocence which brooks no touch of pollution, are continually eulogized. Beatrice is depicted as the figure of long-suffering patience awakened to fury; as Italy must soon be awakened. Although written thus for a given end, dashed off in a hurry, branded with marks of amateurishness, the story as here told has some power to move the feelings. The delineations of Beatrice and her companions in suffering are not convincing portraits; but the plots and the deeds of Francesco, though not warranted by the truth of history, are quite befit- ting him. This novel has been popular enough in Italy to preserve the traditional version of the Cenci story. Another book, with a version nearer the truth, has never reached the same class of readers. This book is the volume by C. T. Dal Bono en- titled Storia di B. Cenci e de' Suoi Tempi con Documenti Ine- dite (NapoU, 1864). The book is a badly arranged, iU-digested mass of material concerning the Cenci family and anything else in Italy that the author chooses to insert. But Dal Bono goes to the depositions of the witnesses during the trial for most of his information; he includes such documents as the will of Francesco Cenci, letters of Beatrice, testimony of Ber- THE CENCI STORY 133 nardo, and opinions by Farinaccio, the lawyer for the defense; so that a student may find here suggestions of the conclusions reached by two later writers on the same theme. In 1872 a formal defense of the action of the Church during the trial of the Cenci appeared in a volimie published by An- tonio Torrigiani, Clemente VIII e il Processo Criminale della B. Cenci. The study is dedicated alle donne Barber a e Angelica Aldohrandini, who were also members of the family to which that Pope belonged. Of more value to the student, this work is also too one-sided, but it contains a large amount of interest- ing out-of-the-way information. From this book we receive the first intimation that Beatrice Cenci was much more worldly wise, much more peccable, than a love for Shelley's drama would have us beheve. Passing by the version of Stendhal, Les Cenci (1855), an account in few things historically correct, we come to the first f unbiased, unprejudiced treatment of the Cenci family and its history in Francesco Cenci e la sua Famiglia, Notizie e Docu- menti Raccolti per A. Bertolotti, pubUshed in 1877, second edi- ^tion in 1879. Nearly all the facts connected with the family and its ruin are here set down — baptismal records, deposi- tions, messages, letters, Papal decrees, court sentences, house- hold accounts, entries from lawyers' notebooks, opinions of advocates, wills. The Italian historians and chroniclers do not have much to say of the Cenci tragedy. The effect, however, that the events produced at the time is indicated by the short relation in Mura- tori, Annali d'ltalia, under the year 1599.* This passage reads as follows: A great sensation was made in this year in Rome and throughout all Italy by an uniisual case of villainy and of justice. Francesco Cenci, a Roman noble, possessed great wealth, for he had inherited from his father more than 80,000 sctidi of annual income; but his iniquity was greater. His least vice was that of the most revolting and nefarious sensuahsm, his greatest renouncing religion. From his first marriage he had five sons and ' Quoted by Torrigiani, p. 178. 134 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DEAMA two daughters; from his second marriage, no children. The brutality shown by him to the former is indescribable, and the daughters suffered treatment no less bestial. The older daughter, having sent a petition to the Pope, escaped from this torment, for her father was forced to give her in marriage. Beatrice, the younger, remained at home, growing up beautiful, even under the dis- ordered desires of him who had given her hfe, for he made her believe that such vicious acts were not sins. This perverted man was not ashamed to abuse his daughter before the eyes of his wife, her stepmother. Finally thegirl, recognizing the brutaUty of her father, began to repulse him. . . . The daughter could not support such an existence; after telling her relatives of her father's treatment without securing any relief, emboldened by her sister's example, she sent a well composed petition to the Pope, in the name of her stepmother. This may, or may not, have been presented; it is certain that it had no effect; but it was found in the Segretaria when needed. In the meantime this became known to the father, and was a reason for his increasing his cruelty to his wife and daughter, even to keeping them locked in their rooms. Goaded to desperation, they vowed his death. It was not difficult to draw into the plot, Giacomo, who had wife and children, for he also had suffered the tyranny of his father. Sp in his own house the sleeping old man was murdered at night by two assas- sins, and his body tlirown secretly into a ravine, so it might appear that he had fallen and so been killed. But God does not permit that the great crime of parricide should be enjoyed in happiness. The guilty were discovered and arrested; they gave way before the pains of torture. Pope Clement read the whole trial, then commanded that the prisoners be quartered by horses. Although the principal lawyers of Rome conducted the defense, the Pope with raised hand refused to listen to them. Nevertheless the famous Farinaccio suc- ceeded in securing an audience; in a plea of four hours he made known the villainy of the dead man. Landor includes among his Acts and Scenes one entitled Beatrice Cenci, Five Scenes. In a brief introduction, among other things he writes: These scenes interfere very Uttle with Shelley's noble tragedy. Two names are the same; one character, by necessity, is similar; Count Cenci, the wickedest man on record. His benefactions to the Papacy, imder the rubric of penalties, or quit-rents for crimes, amounted to 300,000 crowns; so that, after S. Peter, King Pepin and Countess Matilda, the Roman See was under greater obligations to him than to any other supporter. Crimes in the Papal State are as productive tojhe government as vines and olives; THE CENCI STORY 135 no wonder his death was so cruelly avenged. His life had been its gaudy- day; and his loss was the severest it had ever sustained in one person. Yet, so little of gratitude is there in high places, his funeral was unattended by the Cardinals and Court, and what is more remarkable, no poet wrote an elegy to deplore, or an epitaph to praise him. In these five scenes, Landor has powerfully sketched the whole tragedy. His conception of the main character may be gained from the soliloquy which Francesco Cenci delivers after his confessor has left him. There must be (since all fear it) pains below. But how another's back can pass for mine, Or how the scourge be softened into down By holy water, puzzles me; no drop Is there; and nothing holy. Doubt I will. Now, can these fellows in their hearts believe What they would teach us? Yes, they must. Methinks I have some courage: I dare many things. Most things; yet, were I certain I should fall Into a lion's jaws at close of day If I went on, I should be loath to go. Although some night-cap, from some booth well-barred Opens a window, crying, "Never fear!" Is there no likeness? Theirs is the look-out. They toss my sins on shoulder readily; Are they quite sure they can as readily Shuffle them off again? They catch our pouch. The price, the stipulated price, I pay; Will the receiver be as prompt to them? May he not question them? Well, they are gone. Three hundred thousand crowns; and more must go; I shaU cry "quit" — ^but what will their cry be? When time is over, none can ask for time; Pajrment must come — ^and these must pay, not I. "Three hundred thousand crowns," runs my receipt, "Holiness and Infallibility." At bottom, I am safe; the firm is good. If the wax burn their fingers, let them blow And cool it: there it sticks; my part is done. In actual fact Beatrice did not herself plead before the Pope, but Landor has brought these two together. 136 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA Clement. Beatrice. Clement. Beatrice. Clement. Beatrice. Clement. Beatrice. Clement. Thy name. 'Tis Beatrice. Thy surname. Was — Speak, thou sobbing fool! Then speak will I. Cenci. No doubt thou gladly wouldst forget Thy father's name: it bums into thy soul; Thou canst not shake it off, thou canst not quench it. Thou, ere thou earnest hither, didst forget Thou wert his child. What wouldst thou urge thereon? Never did I forget he was my father. He did forget — ^forget — ^forget I was his child. Passionate tears drop from unholy lids More often than from holy. The best men May chide their children; may dislike, may hate — O, had he hated mel Perverse! Perverse! Clement. Get thee gone. Parricide, hie thee from my sight, the rack Awaits thee. Beatrice. Holy father, I have borne That rack already which tears filial love Fi8, f ol. 1 seq. For action of officials at Naples in reporting the case to Rome see Bertolotti, p. 107, citing Archives at Naples, Dec. 10, 1S98. 156 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA of whom was Giacomo Cenci's steward, set out to secure this money. They may have been prompted by Giacomo himself for he would be safer if his two accompUces were dead. The instigator of this part of the plot can not be designated with certainty; but the plan was successful. These three men, all friends of Olimpio's, joined him, and journeyed with him to- wards Anticoli, where he expected to meet his wife. But they murdered him, as one of them testified later, "at dawn at the inn at CantaUce within the Kmgdom, May 17, 1599."*i When two of them presented themselves at Naples to claim the re- ward, they were subjected to an examination which strength- ened the suspicion against the Cenci. But they were mere suspicions; even the flight of Guerra proved nothing. It was the capture of the second assassin, Marzio, that turned sus- picion to what was almost certainty, for this Marzio made a confession in Rome that rendered necessary the trial of the remaining members of the Cenci family .'^^ The wife Lucrezia, Beatrice, Giacomo, and Bernardo were arrested; and by the begiiming of 1599 they were all in prison. From this time until their execution they occupied successively cells in three prisons, Torre Nona, SaveUi, and Castel S. Angelo. They made such impressions of innocence upon their jailors that these latter advanced money, never expecting any sen- tence other than acquittal. Subsequently these poor deluded prison attendants made pleas to the Pope that they might be reimbursed from the confiscated estate of the Cenci.^ It was in prison that Beatrice made her will, with its pro- vision for the marriage portions of poor girls. An idea of the life of this unfortunate woman may be gleaned from the draft which was made pubhc, and the secret codicil which was handed to a lawyer, not to be opened until after her death. The first of these makes a bequest to a nurse for the care of quella per- sona, a phrase that was used wittingly because of its ambi- ■" Bertolotti, p. 109 seq. Archives at Naples, May 13, 1600. « Bertolotti, p. 111. Archives at Rome, 1601. In this document the man who captured Marzio asks for some recognition of his services. « Bertolotti, p. 116. Registro DepoHieria PonUficia, 1600, fol. 22. THE CENCI STORY 157 guity; for the secret codicil contains this same provision, this time for &fanciullo (her son), clearly proving that, though Bea- trice was unhappy, she was none the less a sinner.^ The trial of the prisoners proceeded swiftly.*^ The Pope was so incensed at the enormity of their crimt that he impris- oned an advocate who interceded for them. Giorgio Diedi avocato dopo I'haver parlato con V. Santita per la causa de Cenci e stato carcerato d'ordine di Monsignor Gouvernatore, etc** Finally, however, Fari^accio,*' the greatest lawyer of the day, secured permission to defend the accused. To save their hves hfe would have made it appear that Beatrice was the victim of her father's inordinate desires,** but his pleading and reason- ing availed him nothing in her case.*' The best he could do was to have the death sentence passed on the young Bernardo remitted. The Pope directed the mimicipal jtidge, Uhsse Mos- cati, to proceed with all measures to wring from the accused a confession.^" It was only after torture had been used on all the accused that enough evidence was secured to warrant conviction. Justice was swift; all was over by September 11, 1599.^^ The sentence pronounced against the four principal criminals is comprehensive; it covers six octavo pages. In the sharpest and most direct terms, it reviews the facts of the crime, com- ments on its unhaturaliiess, and then describes in detail the mode of execution to be carried out. The following is a trans- lation of part of the document. They should be condemned, and by these presents we do condemn these and each one of them to the following pains, that is: "Bertolotti, p. 126. Notaro Gentili. Notaro lacobino, 1599. fol. 999. Bertolotti, p. 134. ^For an account of the trial with details of the torture, etc., v. Dal Bono, p. 264 seq. « Bertolotti, p. 125. *' Clement VIII said of him, Buona farina, ma cattivo sacco. Bertolotti, p. 203. « See his opinion, quoted by Dal Bono, p. 472. " Bertolotti, p. 141. Torrigiani also discusses this part of the trial. »» Dal Bono, p. 177. " Bertolotti, p. 264. Dispatch of Mocenigo, Ambassador from Venice. 158 STUDIES m ENGLISH DRAMA Giacomo Cenci above mentioned to the pain of the last suffering and of natural death; that he shall be conducted and is to be conducted in a cart through the city to the usual place of justice, and there with burning pincers be torn, and there, by an agent deputed for this, first be struck on the head so that he shall die, and his soxd be separated from his body, which shall then be torn into pieces and displayed upon the platform. Likewise Beatrice Cenci and Lucrezia Petronia before mentioned, we condemn and desire and order that they shall be delivered as guilty to the pain of the last suffering and of natural death in this manner; as is usual they shall be conducted to the same place of justice, each one of them, and here, by the aforesaid agent, shall be the head of each one and all of them cut from the trunk, so that all and everyone of them shall die, and the soul of each and the souls of all shall separate and be separated from the body aid the bodies; fin- ally, as to Bernardo .... as he should be condemned, so we do condemn him, and we desire and order that he be held as condemned; he shall be and is to be conducted on the cart as the others to the place of justice; and here he shall remain until there have been done to death as before ordered by the aforesaid, the aforesaid Giacomo, etc. Afterwards he shall be reconducted to prison, where he shall remain one year in closest confinement, whence he shall be transferred to the galleys, where he shall remain perpetually that life maybe to him a punishment and death a release. Nothing could be more diabolically cruel than this last pro- vision — to make an eighteen-year-old boy witness the deaths of his mother, sister, and brother. Further on, the sentence contains the decree of confiscation of all the worldly goods of the Cenci family.^^ Everything they owned was seized for the church. This fact has been denied by many writers. Even the otherwise fair-minded Torrigiani denies the possibiUty of this being done, declaring that it was against the law. He forgets that as Louis XIV f4t I'etdt, so any strong Pope was a law unto himself and all his dominions. The sentence was carried out on Saturday, September 11. PubUc sjonpathy had been with the accursed from the beginning of the trial. As we have seen, even their jailors had advanced them money for expenses, never imagining that these attrac- tive and interestiag members of an old and wealthy family '* Bertolotti, p. 201. All the creditors of the Cenci family were paid from the treasury. Editto nelle Cause de' Cenci, 1599. THE CENCI STORY 159 would be convicted. These men may have been actuated by cupidity; but their actions indicate the nature of public opinion. Signs of the same feeling weredisplayed at the scene of execu- tion, for though authoritative documents concerning the atti- tude of the spectators at the execution are lacking, there are some mentions of the public sentiment in contemporary papers, and the memory of this sentiment lasted down to the time of Muratori (1744). Clement VIII issued a motuproprio dated September 11, 1600, forbidding the publishing and circulation of pamphlets containing material deahng with the Cenci trial.^' There must have been some support at large for the charges made against the Pope. Powerful as had Clement been in his life-time, thorough as had been his search after crime and his punishment of it, his harshness and his avariciousness pre- vented him from being popular during his life or after his death. The great body of the people, although moved by the events of the Cenci tragedy, in all probabihty would have allowed the circumstances to fade from memory; but any such forge tful- ness was prevented. The family of Francesco Cenci was not the only branch that bore the name. There was a line of col- lateral relatives to which part of the great estate of the Cenci family should have reverted. But the same decree that made expectations possible, rendered them hopeless. Not a scudo of all that wealth belonged to the heirs of the Cenci; it belonged to the Holy Church. The spectacle of a family, one of whom is a young attractive girl, mounting the scaffold, must create in the onlooking crowd a revulsion of feeling in favor of the vic- tims; but that would pass. The other motive of resentment, however, endured. Hardly had Pope Clement died when the cry went up from these disappointed relatives, "Li hanno spog- liati." And from this beginning, with romantic additions that quite overshadowed the repulsive facts, grew the Cenci story of hterature. We should not be surprised at the differepce between the " Dal Bono, p. 487. 160 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA facts as known in 1600 and theversion by Shelley. Every liter- ary story based on history goes through just such changes. It is not difficult to find examples. ■ One of the best illustrations is the story of Parisina.^ The Marquis of Este punished his beautiful young wife and his illegitimate son, Hugo, for a love he suspected they felt for each other. To-day there is just as much doubt of their guilt as must have assailed the surviving father and husband after he had endeavored to sweep doubts aside by beheading wife and son.*' After all the gruesome facts of the Cenci story, can we find in our hearts any plea for Beatrice, any excuse for the children? After we have taken everything into consideration, we are al- most completely induced to subscribe to the opinion of Swin- burne. II y aura, toujours, comme il y a toujours eu, des fitres humains enyers, lesquelles rhumanitS n'a qu'un seul devoir, les supprimer, les extennSfen les anfiantir; sinon de par la loi, die par I'arrfit de la conscience universelleT Ayant en eUe cette foi profonde, B6atrice rend h I'enfer ce qui est k I'en- fer, — rame du comte Francois Cenci.'' These events of the history of the Cenci family could be cast into a great novel, but the one man who could deal with them adequately is dead. In such a story as these true events would make, fimile Zola would be in his element. Where in all this terrible history is there a ray of brightness, a breath of gentleness, a wish for betterment, a striving for happiness? In only one circumstance, in the love of Beatrice; but even that affection was degrading if its object was Olimpio, the hired as- sassin, as has been suggested, and even were it not he, many people would condemn Beatrice for her too easy compliance, for her worldly dishonor; and again, it is about this one pos- sibly bright spot that we know least. " See the two versions: Byron, Parisina; and Dom Tumiati in Nttova Antologia, September, 1901. '' V. Gibbon, Miscellaneous Works, HI, 470. " Swinburne, Studies in Prose and Poetry. Les Cenci. FUNCTION AND CONTENT OF THE PROLOGUE, CHORUS, AND OTHER NON-ORGANIC ELEMENTS IN ENGLISH DRAMA, FROM THE BEGINNINGS TO 1642 MARTHA CAUSE McCAULLEY I. Introduction Definition of Tertas. — Ultimate Mediaeval Origins of Prologue, Chorus, and Epilogue. — ^Their History in Pre-Renaissance Drama. Non-organic or extraneous portions of drama are those parts which are presented with the drama, but which have no logical share in its story. Inasmuch as the great bulk of Eng- lish drama in the period under discussion is so full of inco- herencies and techSiical faults as to contain, in the course of its dialogue, innumerable passages which meet the requirements of the definition as thus far given, it must be stated further that, for the purposes of this essay, non-organic or extraneous parts are those that are formally distinct from the dramatic sequence of the dialogue. These parts naturally differ in function. They are directly referential to the play when serving to introduce and explain it; indirectly so when the audience needs persua- sion or apology, or the author an outlet for personal or critical comment. Specifically, they are prologues, epilogues, chor- uses, intermeans, inductions, dedications, and addresses of one sort or another. Since they share the prevalent uncertainty of dramatic form, they are sometimes dramatic, sometimes not so. Some of them, as prologue, epilogue, and chorus, belong primarily to the spoken drama; some, as epistles and other ad- dresses, form no part of the staged play. Prologues, addresses of all sorts, and inductions have, in general, an introductory function — to arouse interest, to explain, to please. The chorus, 161 162 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA occupying a medial position, functions largely as an interested spectator of the action with power of comment, and hence ad- mits of more interpretation than can be compressed into a formula. The epilogue, coming at the end of the main action, possesses all the variety and potentiality of "the last word," although actually inferior to tiie prologue in range of subject- matter and variety of form. The beginnings of the non-organic or extraneous portions of modern drama are as old as the beginnings of the drama prop- er, and their sources are much the same: the dramatic repre- sentations of mediaeval church liturgy; the farce of the Roman mimus and his successors; the folk-play to some extent; and the classical revivals of humanism. Of all these sources, the church liturgy is most important in a study of the extraneities of drama. The ultimate origins of prologue, chorus, and epi- logue are the priest and the Te Deum or the Magnificat of the mediaeval church service — agencies far less aUke in character and function than are the products of their literary evolution. It is unnecessary to repeat in detail the well-known facts relat- ing to the liturgical origins of drama; it is enough to say that liturgical services dramatically expanded were habitually con- cluded with the Te Deum, although the Magnificat and other musical endings were sometimes substituted;^ and that the func- tion of the priest was habitually that of provider and expositor of the scene or scenes, and occasionally that of actor in them. It needs no straining of imagination to see that the priest would naturally say a few words about the play to be presented, and that he would interrupt it from time to time to make its mean- ing clear or to point its moral. Here is evidently some, if not sufficient, impetus toward the development of prologue and chorus. As for the epilogue — what was it but the expression in words of the significance of the Te Deum: that the representa- tion had come to an end and that it had been offered for the ' Such a statement implies that the liturgical drama generally occurred after matins, sometimes after vespers, and now and then at other hours. Cf. Chambers, Dejulleville, etc., etc. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 163 glory of God and for the salvation of men? Just such verbal acknowledgments constitute many of the early epilogues.^ Others, obviously of Latin provenience, are mere requests for a plaudite} The continuance of classical influence needs no proof, slight as its traces often are. Concerning the parade of the mimus or buffoon, cited* as a possible origin of some early prologues, the evidence seems to point quite as much away from , the mime as towards him. This parade, consisting in the self-, advertisement of the mime and the boast of his proficiency,; may have suggested those familiar prologues which seem to i anticipate the colloquiahsm of Plautus;' yet when it is remem- bered that the naivete of Deus Pater and the famiharities of Herod in the EngUsh cycle plays are identical with the talk of personages in the Sword and St. George plays, it seems unnec- essary to look for other originals than the "smart Alecs" of every village community. As time passed and the stories of the birth and resurrection of Jesus became inadequate for the purposes of the clergy, larger and larger portions of the Bible were dramatized. These new narratives contained personages whose expository functions necessarily encroached upon those of the priest.^ Tndeed, the priest was at first an unrepresented expositor, for these other characters alone had part in the action. It was only after the pseudo-Augustine had deUvered his famous sermon on the prophets, and the entire mediaeval church had given it dramatic representation in various versions of Prophetae, that the priest had really any formal and necessary share in the individual drama. But the part that he then took has never wholly disappeared from EngUsh drama; it is the name of the func- tionary only, not of the function, that has been lost. "What," ' York XII, Digby Mind, Will and Understanding, Brome Abraham and Isaac, Castle of Perseverance, Mankind, Youth, etc., etc. ' Gammer Gurton, Gascoigne's Supposes, etc. * Chambers, I, 85. ' For example, the opening speeches of Mundus, Belyal, and Caro in The Castle of Perseverance. • E.g., Wise Men, Angelus, Prophets, etc., etc. 164 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA says Mr. Chambers, "are the Expositor of the Ludus Coventriae, the Doctor of the Brome play, or even Baleus Prolocutor him- self, but the hneal descendants ... of the priest who read the pseudo-Augustinian lectio from which the Prophetae sprang?'" And what, it may further be asked, is the modern prologue but the lineal descendant of Baleus Prolocutor? For if it be granted that the extraneous parts of drama owed tre- mendous debt to Renaissance influences, it must equally be ad- mitted that their original inspiration seems traceable to a time much anterior to that of the Renaissance. Although the ex- traneous origin of the prologue has been indicated, it should be noted that the prologue-speaker, like his ghostly prototype of p re-renaissance times, was sometimes absorbed into the play.' He shifted, not his function, but his place, because the arti- ficers of early drama were very primitive technicians. When one passes from a consideration of Uturgical drama to a study of the EngUsh miracle plays, one must admit that there appears to be, at least in the oldest examples, but little develop- ment of these non-organic elements. The drama as a whole is more elaborate, but the form is no more mature than it was earlier. The cosmic type of this drama presents, however, a number of instances in which one part of the dramatized nar- rative more or less complete in itself leads into or introduces a larger drama. Sometimes this induction and the drama that it introduces are separate representations;' sometimes they form but one representation,"" distinguished by grouping of charac- ter or by treatment of material, or by both. There seems to be no consciousness in the playwright of any difference of rela- tion between two dramas of which one is directly introductory, and between two dramas that lack such association. In the York cycle, there is little place for an extraneous ele- ' Chambers, II, 148. « Cf. liturgical drama of 13th century as exemplified in Du M6ril, pases 89, 91, 94, etc. » York VIII and IX, Coventry VII and VIII, as representative of many others. " York XX. NON-ORGANIC DRAMAHC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 165 ment of the Baleus Prolocutor type; its vogue came with \ the advent of a didactic intention extrinsic to the Bible story. ' With the development of this didactic purpose, the extraneous parts of drama necessarily became more prominent, for it was inevitable that the moral should outrank the story at this primitive stage of English dramatic technique. But this prominence is not, at first, in respect to form." Extraneities ! become formal as the reforming spirit of the age increases and as Moralities come to surpass the Cycles in popular appeal. Yet here, though formal, they are often not extraneous,'^ be- cause the entire fabric of the representation is didactic — sadly unsuited to the dramatic piu-pose which it subserves. In the sense, then, of the definition, pre-renaissance EngUsh drama has very few non-organic and extraneous parts. Here and there a Prologus is formally denominated,^' but not logi- cally severed from the representation; occasionally, Contem- placio or Expositor is really represented as extraneous. In the ' main, the extraneous elements of English drama attain formal existence only after the Renaissance. The drama as a whole has vigor and variety, but the extraneous elements are still in solution, awaiting the power of classical influence to give them definite shape. To say that the Renaissance gave the idea of i these extraneities to English playwrights is less accurate than to say that it gave the forms in which the ideas could be cast,j and that it indicated a more effective arrangement. If it had afforded fewer examples of formal extraneity, this idea of form might have been less handicapping. The ensuing discussion will perhaps show the sense in which this assertion is true. II. The Chorus History of the Chorus between, 1562 and 1611. — Its Character and Func- tion. — (a) Chorus Material in Classical Form. — Chorus and Dumbshow. — The Chorus classical in various ways. — History of the Classical Chorus from " C/. York VI, IX, XI, etc., etc. '^ Cf. Pity as prologue in Hickscorner, Courtly Abusion in Magnificence, etc i? Cf. York XII and PrUe of Ufe. 166 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA Gorboduc to the work of Jasper Fisher. — (b) Chorus Material in Non- Classical Form. — Typical of English Dramatic Tendencies. — History from Love and Fortune to the work of Thomas Randolph. — Summary. The quick growth of the chorus, its temporary vogue, and the rapidity with which it was discarded, make it one of the most conspicuous phenomena in post-renaissance drama, and therefore justify the assignment to it of first place in a dis- cussion of the effects of the Renaissance upon EngUsh drama. Facts seem to imply that the chorus was adopted by fenglish playwrights not so much on account of its merits as a chorus as on account of its prominence in the tragedies of Seneca that had recently become so generally interesting to EngUsh writ- ers. The popular notion of Seneca among EngUshmen was originally due, not to an immediate interpretation of the Latin original, but to the enthusiastic adaptation of an Italian con- ception,^ for it was Italy that had raised Seneca to be "the ar- biter of tragic usage and the model of tragic style." This eminent position was due partly to the power of Italy to set a literary fashion, but more to Seneca's romanticism, rhetoric, sententiousness, and general modemness.'' Englishmen trans- lated his plays before they imitated his characteristics. By an interesting paradox, they showed great independence in their handling of these translations. The scholar-gentlemen of the Inner Temple who translated the Tenne Tragedies between 1559 and 1581, omitted some choruses on the ground that they were uninteresting and unnecessary, and added passages of their own composition when these seemed needed for the gratifica- tion of translator or reader.' Such independence is proof neither of the inorganic character of the Senecan chorus nor yet of what Dr. Fischer terms the slavish dependence of Enghsh dramatists upon Seneca;^ it is rather evidence of the essential freedom of English dramatists under the force of a powerful influence, and sufficiently marks the presence of one ' Cambridge History, V, 69. * ScheUing's Elizabethan Drama, I, 96. ' CJ. prefaces to individual plays in the collection. * Fischer's KunstentwicUung, 2S. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 167 of the principles which necessitated the short life of the English chorus. Although the formal chorus first came into EngUsh drama in this translation of the Senecan tragedies,^ it did not reach the pubUc stage until the gentlemen of Gray's Inn presented Gor- boduc in 1562. The half-century after this date marks the period when the chorus had its vogue. In 1611, Jonson's Cati- line practically closed the period, though choruses occur at rare intervals from that time until 1640, when Sandys's Christ's Passion offered apparently the last belated instance of the form. Although anything like exact statistical statement in this matter would be hazardous, if not impossible, the verifica- tion of any good play-hst° justifies the assertion that the dramas which have choruses not only fall within a hmited period, but do not begin to constitute the entire dramatic output of that time. Causes for this state of affairs are found in the essentially popular appeal of the EngUsh stage and in the fact that what Englishmen liked in Seneca was not his form, which was suf- ficiently classical, but his popular quaUties, which exactly met the need of the moment.' Even learned playwrights, as Pres- ton and Edwards, who mighthave followed Gascoigne's example and treated their themes in the classical manner, gave up the effort to secure classic purity of form and submitted wholly to the popular influence in drama.' What the knowing authors of Cambises and of Damon and Pithias did deUberately, the less well educated playwrights did inevitably. The well-es- tablished tendencies of Enghsh drama away from rigid forms and hard-and-fast rules, and the existing facts in regard to the 6 Creizenach, IV, 464, notes that before 1558 Queen Elizabeth trans- lated into blank verse the second chorus of Hercules Oetaeus and that, consequently, she, and not the composers of Gorboduc, should have the fame of having first applied this metre to drama, notwithstanding the fact that her attempt was not fully satisfactory and not intended for publicity. This chorus is reprinted in Anglia XIV, for the year 1892. « Such as those in (o) F. E. Schelling's Elizabethan Drama, II, 538-624; (b) The Cambridge History of English L»7ero/«re, bibliography to vols. V and VI. ' Cf. paradlel passages in Cunliffe's Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy, passim. 8 Creizenach, II, 473. 168 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA use of the chorus — ^which rather illustrate such tendencies than indicate others — ^favor the conclusion that in English drama be- fore 1642 the chorus is ephemeral and infrequent. Nor need this statement, certainly vaUd for EngUsh drama in the entire time, be greatly quaUfied for the period during which the chorus was a frequent device; for among extant plays, those with choruses are many times less in number than those with- out, even when, as in this discussion, the term chorus is used to mean whatever comes between acts. There is no reason to suppose that the proportion in the lost plays would greatly modify these conclusions if it could be known; nor need con- siderations of comparative excellence in plays with choruses and plays without them invalidate the general conclusion. The data accessible thus go to show that in these fifty years (1562- 1611) all the mediocre tragedies and most of the important ones have choruses,' and that other kinds of drama also come in for their share of choric additions. The chorus itself, to meet this exigency, shows not only classical types but also popular types: that is, choruses obviously determined not by rule or precedent, but by the author's desire to increase the general interest of his play. Such choruses are free from even nominal reliance upon classical models. The character and function of the chorus are broadly indi- cated by saying that it is the visible bond between drama and public. Greek and Latin dramatists so understood it; English dramatists enlarged the same idea and used the chorus in ways imdreamed-of by their classical predecessors. The emplo3mient of the chorus as narrator of events that cannot be brought into the time limit of the performance, but that are necessary for adequate exposition, was peculiarly English and sometimes the only explanation of an otherwise superfluous chorus. Very early in the history of the EngUsh chorus its elements were individualized and allotted functions that in classical examples ' Jonson's Sejanus and both parts of Chapman's Bussy D'Amhois are without choruses. This may be because these tragedies are essentially historical chronicles, in which, save by exception, the chorus has little propriety. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 169 were given only to the chorus leader. Side by side with this variation the classically-modelled chorus is found, consisting of small groups of people, as, "Four old men," "Four wise men," "Chorus of Burghers," "Bashas or Caddies," "Evil Spirits," "Courtiers," "Ladies," "Country Justices and their j Wives," etc., etc. Variety becomes almost the rule, whether j considered from the point of view of subject-matter or from that of form. Many choruses seem to be suggested by hterary forms more or less closely related to drama, such as the debat or estrif;^° some are mere dialogues without the contention motive, and employed to amuse, to instruct, to warn, to satirize. Oth- ers, naturally, echo Seneca, having ghosts and furies for their highly individuahzed elements. Sometimes the chorus is of one piece with prologue and epilogue, constituting a sort of framework for the play and capable of a good deal of variety in form and matter. One of these varieties is that of an envel- oping action carried on sometimes by mythological personages, sometimes by the same class of folk as that found in the main action, but contrasted with it in one way or another. Some- times this framework is less for the artistic purpose of the play 1 than for the intellectual rehef of the dramatist and the moral j reformation of the playgoing world, as in Jonson. Rarely, it contains the himian interest of the play and reverses the order, making the drama subsidiary and illustrative, as in The Muses' Looking-Glass. The chorus in Senecan drama was extraneous to the action and could be removed without affecting the plot in any way. In Enghsh drama it was equally ornamental, save in the kind of instance, already noted, where it served as narrative sub- stitute for the plot." Here it collected within formal limits the epic passages which, in earlier English drama, had been assigned to personages in the action. In no other function does it seem to have been vital. If in Greek drama the chorus '" The Cambridge History says that no such connection has been proved. C/. vol. V, p. 3. " Fischer, pp. 8, 9, 10, 72, 74, etc. 170 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA was a hindrance to dramatic development, and if its history throughout the classical period marks its steadily decreasing value as a dramatic asset," how much less serviceable must it have been in a drama like that of England, which was not lyrical in origin, but which, in emphasis as well as in intention, was from the start dramatic above all else, however hospitably it may have welcomed reflection and contemplation as essential to its ultimate purpose. The EUzabethan playwright was guided by a variety of motives in his increasing independence of the chorus. His artistic ideal seems to have been a dra- matic unit incorporating into its very substance the material which, in inferior dramas, possessed only extraneous form and function: a drama in which the non-dramatic interests of life — so necessary to any full representation of human activ- ity — were to find a place, but where they were to be dramati- cally indicated, flashed out in the thick of the fight, not set apart and labelled "chorus." Whether this ideal were actu- ally entertained by EngUsh plajrwrights is, perhaps, hardly an open question; but that it was the logical as well as the artistic end for the evolution of EngUsh dramatic foirm is an inference certainly justified by the highest dramatic accom- phshment of the period. The chorus served at once to em- phasize and to retard this evolution. Its total influence is not to be accounted maUgn, however, since English dramatists learned so many valuable lessons in learning to reject it. Consideration of these technical benefits lies in a more inter- esting field than that of this essay, and must here be left unattempted. A classification of the plays containing chorus material dis- posed extraneously to the action, shows that by far the larger proportion have choruses in verse. The others have choruses forming portions of the dialogue framework in which the play proper is set. In these choruses there is a frequent, though not conspicuous, use of the contention motive, and an observ- "John Stuart Blackie, Genius and Character of Greek Tragedy, p. xxxvi. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 171 able tendency to give undue prominence and dramatic in- terest to the interlocutors. Very rarely, the chorus exists only to interpret the dumb show. In such case it is generally in verse, although where its form is that of dialogue, the topics discussed seem to determine the precise nature of the rhythm used. Jonson, who contributed most of this sort of chorus, gave it a prose dress. (o) Chorus Material in Classical Form The earliest appearance of the formal chorus was, however, in verse form. In Gorboduc it is arranged, as in Senecan trag- edy, after each of the first four acts. With it are dumb shows, another conspicuous novelty in English drama, famil- iar to certain kinds of Latin drama, but unknown to the Senecan variety; common, imder the name iniermedii, to Ital- ian drama, though not often associated with tragedy ;'' and familiar to EngUsh rural drama and pubUc hospitahty. The dumb show in Gorboduc is not, however, due to native precur- sors, but is of ItaUan provenience." It stands at the begin- nine of each act instead of at the end as in Itahan drama'^ and, although not a structural part of the act, is not logi- cally extraneous, as it is an allegorical representation of the plot. The chorus in this play does not explain the dumb show, as in so many later instances, but consists of rhetorical gen- eraHzations upon the events of the preceding act. It is almost wholly without classical allusion, or indeed, reference or concrete illustration of any kind. Save that it is written | ,: /, ,,, in rimed pentameter instead of in blank verse, its metrical! form offers no contrast to that of the drama. While Gor- boduc is classical in form, it is not so in theme, nor are its choruses indebted to Senecan example for their purpose. A similar didacticism is found in the speeches of Doctor, Ex- positor, or Contemplacio in much older, indigenous plays. " Cambridge History, V, 77. ^*Ibid. "Ibid. 172 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA Distinction of form, rather than any novelty of idea, seems to constitute the importance of this earliest imitation of a classical chorus. The cast of phrase, unlike much that came later, owes practically nothing to Senecan suggestion. The subject-matter of the drama is Enghsh history — or what was thought by its authors to be such. If any part of the choric stuff has been borrowed, it has been worn in English fashion. The same cannot be said, however, of Gascoigne's Jocasta, a translation of Dolce's version of Euripides. Both form and manner are predominantly classical. The chorus not only re- mains on the stage continuously from the time of its first ap- J) pearance at the end of the first act, but is also in accord with '' classical usage when it takes part in the action. Similarly classical is Kyd's Cornelia, translated from Garnier's tragedy and showing no departure from classical example save in the lyric form and rhythm of chorus Unes in the manner of French adaptations of Seneca. Gismond of Salem is, however, more independent, though almost more so in spirit than in form. It was the first Enghsh drama to be based on an ItaKan novella. The modifications of the original story are empha- sized by the use of the chorus, which helps to give dignity and cahn to a passion evidently regarded as in its Italian presentment too extreme for Enghsh audiences." In these choruses the ideas are much more suggestive of Seneca than were those in the choruses of Gorboduc, being easily traceable to specific dramas,!' though not yet offering resemblance to the Senecan phrase. Instead of the simple rhetoric of the choruses of Gorboduc, there is an ornate style abounding in mythological allusion and elaborate parallel. In the last act, the chorus functions as a dramatis persona, conformably to classical usage. Here, at closer range, it should seem to have more power to control the violence of the catastrophe. On the contrary, the end is full of horrors which are enacted on the stage. Evidently this glut of death proved more ^' Cambridge History, V, 82, and also the epilogue of the play. " Hippolytus, chorus iv; Hercules Oetaeus, chorus ii; Oedipus, chorus iv. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 173 dear to the playwrights than their love of classic form; other- wise these suicides would have occurred out of sight. Thus there seems to be proof of an incompatibility between the inevitable tendency of English taste and the classical forms that would prevent its free expression. In this play, as in Gorboduc, the dumb shows are not incorporated in the acts of the play. In 1591, twenty-three years after the original presentation, this play was revised by one of the original au- thors. In the version of 1568, the second chorus is given to "four wise men of Salerno;"^* in that of 1591, the same chorus is given to maidens, thus permitting a more striking tribute to the queen. Love of sensational effects must have in- creased during the period, for in the version of 1568 Megaera comes alone to announce her accursed purpose and function, while in that of 1591 Alecto and Tisiphone come with her and dance a hellish dance about her until she dismisses them. The actual number of Unes in both sets of choruses is about the same, since ten and a half have been omitted and fifteen have been added; but ideas are not materially changed." Today the play is best known by the title of the revised ver- sion, Tancred and Gismunda. The next succeeding drama to have a chorus is not a tragedy, as the others have been, but a sort of hybrid — Gascoigne's Glass of Government. It is definitely separated from anything like true comedy, for it has been regarded not only as a sombre Calvinistic drama,^" but as, in the author's view, a sort of tragi-comedy "bycause therein are handled as well the rewardes for Virtues, as also the punishment for Vices." The two sons who deservedly come to bad ends do not make it a tragedy, even under the AristoteUan definition, although it comes perilously near being an action that is "serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude." The Glass contains much chorus material appallingly moraUstic. Although the " C/. the "Four Wise Men of Britain" in Gorboduc. " In this respect, the epilogues show more alteration than the choruses. »» C. H. Herford, in Englische Studien, IX, 201. 174 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA acts are in prose, the choruses are in various forms of iambic verse. The chief merit of these short "moral odes," as Gascoigne calls them, is that their metre and rime afford rehef from the prose of the scenes. There is no change of atmosphere or of temperature; the whole drama is more de- pressing than any tragedy. The chorus, as in the earlier Gorboduc and in Gismond, is given to "four grave men," burghers in this case, as suits the setting of the drama. The choruses as a whole constitute a sermon in metre with an exposition of the pains of parental solicitude; the "vile wares" the world is full of; the invariable tendency of worthy char- acter to reveal itself ultimately; the need of God's grace as the only efficacious power against deep-rooted vice. Although such ideas clearly show a close relation in. subject-matter be- tween this play and the morahties, a comparison of the Glass with any typical moraUty of earlier date will show a notice- able difference in form. The arrangement of the morality is necessarily less analytical. The formal choruses of Gascoigne's moraUty and the divisions of acts and scenes indicate one of the chief virtues resulting from classical influence on English drama: the development of a sense of form and order. The Misfortunes of Arthur continues the tradition, begun with Gorboduc and followed in Gismond, of the barristers of London as tragic dramatists. All the accompaniments to the drama proper of this play are conspicuously lawyer-like in their ingenuity, complexity, and elaboration. It is said that the accessories were more regarded than the drama itself, inasmuch as the title of a pamphlet contemporaneously pub- lished to advertise the play made no mention of the drama.''' Its theme goes back to British legendary history, making it, in this respect, a companion piece to Gorboduc. But in The Misfortunes the choruses are Senecan in more than their in- spiration. Similarity in idea is striking; the "sentences" of '"^ Cambridge History, V, 86. The title of the pamphlet reads: Certaine devises and shewes presented to her Majestie by the Gentlemen of Grayes-Inne at her Highnesse Court in Greenemck, the twenty-eighth day of Februarie in the thirtieth yeare of her Majesties most happy Raigne. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 175 Seneca are appearing.''^ The metrical variety is greater, too, than that in Gorboduc. While the measure of the verses is'i five-stressed iambic, the Unes are bound into stanzas of vary- ( ing length and given in rotation to individual members of the ' chorus. This seems to be the chief formal difference between ; these choruses and earher ones. Although such division is an innovation from the standpoint of Latin choruses, it is very familiar to the informal choruses of hturgical and cyclical drama.^' In addition to the formal choruses, there are what might be called subsidiary choruses, spoken by the ghost of Gorlois. In the tragedy of Locrine, written earlier, ghosts mix in the action. Whether or not these ghosts belonged to the group from which Peele took his ghosts, and were conse- quently more disturbing than the normal ghost, which cannot be accused of subtlety and satire, we may never know; but at least they had no immediate followers, for in The Mis- fortunes, which quickly succeeded Locrine, the ghosts are kept out of the plot, (jorlois, to be sure, appears in the second scene of the fifth act, but he comes alone and has the scene to himself. In like manner, Nuntius has the whole first scene of the second act. These scenes are more properly epic pas- sages than choruses, but they are undeniably extraneous to the action of the piece itself. They have all the value of choruses in that they fill interstices in the action, and comment or criticize or bewail. In the next year after The Misfortunes was presented before the queen, Marlowe's Faustus appeared. Much of this play might be termed extraneous, if only it were possible first to select what is intrinsic, to determine what is essential and what non-essential to the end for which everything seems in some way a pertinent preparation. Where the good and evil angels contend for the soul of man, we are reminded of the conten- tions of Love and Fortune in the Triumphs of those goddesses.^* 22 Cambridge History, V, 87, instances literal translation of some lines. ^ York XXV and others. 2* The idea of such strife is, of course, older than either of these examples. 176 STUDIES m ENGLISH DRAMA Wagner's soliloquies often function as choruses. There is but one formal chorus, which moralizes the action, narrates much unrepresented plot, and at the same time expresses the theme in its exhortation to the wise Only to wonder at unlawful things Whose deepness doth entise such forward wits To practice more than heavenly power permits. While drama during these years was largely a process of experimenting with borrowed ideas and forms and methods, there are instances also of the continuance of older dramatic forms. The morahty play was still being written, although somewhat modified by the influence of changes in other forms of drama. A Looking-Glass for London and England is an illustration in point. The chorus of this Bibhcal morahty of the last decade of the century is assigned to the prophets "Oseas" and "Jonas," who take it in tvurn. While the function of this chorus, like that of many earUer ones, is to narrate what has happened and what is to happen, the overwhelmingly didac- tic purpose of the play seems to justify the playwright in giving a new turn to the final appeal. Each chorus concludes with an exhortation to London to repent "and tempt not the heav- enly power." Although the choruses of the Looking-Glass sue formal as they were not in the days when morahties were more frequently written, they are not any more nearly extraneous. They are conscious, however, as their form indicates: con- scious of classical example both for their form and for their position in the drama. This is the significant difference. In Peek's David and Bethsabe there is nothing that has not been covered by what has aheady been said of the Looking- Glass for London and England, save that Peek's drama is what one might expect the old single Bible-play to become vmder the modifying influence of the popular chronicle histories. The play harks back to its earlier prototypes in its lack of division into acts or scenes. The second chorus, following the death of Absalom, promises a third part of the drama which NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 177 shall extend beyond the death of David — a promise which is not fulfilled, for the drama ends with David's elegy on Absa- lom. The True Tragedy of Richard III is not to be grouped with these plays by right of any formal choruses. Together with Sejanus and Bussy D'Ambois it constitutes an exception to the general rule that throughout this period tragedies had formal choruses. Yet some of its passages have pronounced choric function. After Richmond kills Richard, the entrance of Report and the page is equivalent to "enter Chorus," for the page exercises precisely the functions of the chorus in Henry the Fifth. In The Battle of Alcazar dumb shows, which are interpreted by a presenter, appear in the body of the text as corporate parts of the drama. The occurrence of these semi-extraneous parts is irregular, two elaborate dumb shows coming in suc- cession as prelude to the first act, merely elementary ones ap- pearing in the second and third acts, and a more complete alle- gory ushering in the last act. The presenter exercises his office for the drama as well as for the dumb shows, and gives to his lines the appearance of chorus in all instances where he criti- cizes or moralizes the action. Such association of chorus and dmnb show would seem to have had a very real effect upon the character of the chorus.^* One result was not so much to alter its function as to limit it to comment and to such comment only as immediately concerned the dumb show. Thus ab- stract consideration, imaginative treatment, and poetical con- ception and expression were rendered largely unnecessary. In consequence, the dignity of the traditional chorus was low- ered and its appeal restricted whenever it was combined in a play with dumb show. Thus The Downfall of Robert, Earl of Huntington has in the first scene of Act I a dumb show that is later repeated in order that it may be explained. This interpretation, bearing not the slightest resemblance to ^ See Miss Foster's article, "Dumb Show in English Drama before 1620," EngUsche Studien, band 44, heft 1, 1911. 178 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA the chorus as we conceive it theoretically, has yet been made possible through the gradual degradation of the chorus as an i interpreter. In regular sequence it has decUned through three stages of interpretation: first, an interpretation of the spiritual aspects of drama; secondly, of the material aspects; and fin- ally, of the pantomime reflecting both these aspects. This ; interpretation of mere pantomime is at first not without poet- ical appeal; but Uttle by httle, it, too, loses all aflBatus and, in The Downfall of Huntington, is merely an index or catalogue of the play.'^ Thomas Hej'wood is represented by only three dramatic com- positions with choruses, namely: The Golden Age, The Silver Age, and The Brazen Age. In all. Homer is the chorus speaker. His employment is evidently due to epic suggestion, not to dra- matic instinct. Dumb shows are introduced into The Golden Age, though apparently at haphazard, and always in illustration of Homer's speeches, therefore subordinate to them. In earUer instances, the reverse relation obtained. In The Golden Age there are six choruses — ^before each act and at the end of the piece — ^and five dumb shows, accompanjang each chorus ex- cept the first. In The Silver Age, there are seven choruses, the second and fifth accompanied by dumb shows. Division into acts is abandoned after the third act. If but three acts were intended, four of Homer's choruses and one of the dumb shows, as well as the chorus at the end of the play, would all belong to the third act. In The Brazen Age there are also seven choruses, the fourth and the sixth having dimib shows. Only the first scene of the first act and the second scene of the sec- ond act of this play are indicated. Such use of the chorus seems added confirmation of the suspicion that the ordinary writer for the Ehzabethan theatre is catering to a public un- favorable to classic choruses. Of course, such an impression is greatly strengthened by the other parts of the play. These '" In the successor to this play, namely The Death of the same hero, three speeches in Dodsley's edition are marked "Cho.;" but they are not choric in any sense, even as a catalogue, and may have been intended for some dramatis persona who has been misprinted. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 179 dramas, based on classic mythology, are treated with the ut- most disregard of dramatic convention. Yet they were admit- tedly popular, perhaps for that reason. In the tragedy of Thomas, Lord Cromwell, the use made of the chorus is worthy of remark. It enters three times at irregu- lar intervals, without the least regard to acts and scenes, but strictly in accordance with the logical development of the story; and this in spite of the fact that its work is wholly perfunctory, merely relating the plot and, in one instance, saying naively, Pardon if we omit all Wolsey's life, Because our play depends on Cromwell's death. These choruses indicate a piece in four acts. But probably the conventional five acts misled the printer or editor who first indicated such division. In the same way, The Spanish Trag- edy was given five acts until Mr. Boas printed it in four, appar- ently with due regard to this function of the chorus as a di- vider of the action. Daniel's Cleopatra, first published in 1593, has been edited^'' to show the shifting of some of the chor- uses and the exchange of others after the first printing of the piece. In the edition of 1611, the final arrangement, each act is followed by a chorus. In earher editions there was no chorus until after the first scene of the second act. In 1611, this chorus was placed after the first act. The place of the second chorus has remained fixed at the end of the second act, but the one now printed there was originally the third chorus, at the end of the third act. These two choruses were exchanged. In earlier editions the fourth chorus came after the second scene of the fourth act instead of at the end of the act. Such re- arrangement seems to indicate an increased perception of structural value on the part of the playwright. The earlier use of the chorus seems rather due to the fact that choruses were the fashion and were, like many other fashions, often worn without regard to vital fitness. This instance of Daniel's alterations, if taken in connection with instances of choruses 2'C/. Bang, Materialien, vol. 31. 180 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA which were left faultily located and out of place, may be held to indicate an uncertainty about the function and significance of the chorus that was felt not only by Daniel, but by dram- atists generally; an uncertainty that would not have per- sisted had these men possessed the instinct for the chorus which is essential to any vital use of it. The only choruses that seem at home in Enghsh drama are those in Alaham and Mustapha, dramas written comparatively late. Yet they only strengthen the general case, for the term drama is rather a misnomer for philosophical poems in which the name chorus is apphed to certain sections. Greville was not primarily a dramatist. Drama is essentially concrete. Greville dealt in abstractions. Lamb, according to Hazhtt,''^ coupled Greville and Sir Thomas Browne together as writers of riddles and mysteries, and said of Greville, "He is like noth- ing but one of his own 'Prologues spoken by the ghost of an old king of Ormus,' a truly formidable and inviting personage: his style is apocalyptical, cabaUstical, a knot worthy of such an apparition to untie." Cowley calls him somewhere "a vast species alone." He is enigmatical and tantalizing, perhaps because he is intellectual and fanciful^' — a, really rare combina- tion — ^instead of imaginative and sensuous, like the average man. It is not surprising that Greville's choruses create a literary and not a dramatic impression. They need not be condemned if it is recalled that they were not intended for the stage. Greville says in his Life o/5*d»e3»: "If .... I have made these Tragedies no plaies for the stage; be it known it was no part of my purpose to write for them, against whom so many good and great spirits have aheady written." In most of these choruses there is very shght reference to the action of the drama: the thoughts of the drama suggest other thoughts, different in mood or scope; these other thoughts are given to the choruses. This loosely associative relation of play and chorus is found sometimes in Greek drama and often in Sen- 2» Cf. Hazlitt's essay, "Of Persons One Would Wish to have Seen." " Gosse: From Shakespeare to Pope, p. 146. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 181 eca; but many of the topics discussed by Greville would never have occurred to classical dramatists in such association. Although Greville had intensity of vision and abundant poetic fancy, his choruses rise to such heights of abstraction that they constitute rather expository essays than parts of dramatic poetry. Their extraneity is two-fold: not only legitimately outside the plot, but intellectually distinct from the mood of the poem proper. That mood, although colored somewhat by human action and passion, is, according to Lamb, "subser- vient to the expression of State dogmas and mysteries." Gre- ville's own view of these choruses is quoted by Grosart: "The workes — as you see — are Tragedies with some treatises an- nexed. The Treatises — to speak truly of them — were but ' intended to be for every act a chorus: and that not borne out of the present matter acted, yet being the largest subjects I could then think upon."*" Here then, the chorus is admittedly a vehicle of the most abstract thought. Greville's choruses are interesting, not as parts of a drama, but in themselves. There is compeUing force in the intensity with which the thought is uttered. In spite of great unlikeness of ideal con- tent, the choruses of Greville suggest some of those in Jonson's plays, because of a certain resemblance in them as revealers of the personality of the authors and because of the striking exceptions they constitute to the perfunctoriness of most choruses. Both Daniel and Fulke Greville belong to the group of Eng- lish dramatists who felt the force of Seneca as it expressed it- self through French and not through Italian adaptations. Although Kyd's translation of Garnier's Cornelie marks, as already noted, the earUest appearance of French Seneca in EngUsh, Kyd's development of a tragic theme preferably fol- lowed Italian methods. The most salient features of the French Senecan influence are the elaborate stanzaic form and compUcated riming scheme of the choruses as contrasted with "• Grosart's edition of Greville's Works, II, p. xv. 182 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA a regularity in the verse-form and in the rime of the tragedy proper.^i Daniel's Hymen's Triumph carries this so far that the choruses are mere l3T:ics Uke thousands that were writ- ten for contemporary song-books. Brandon's Virtuous Octavia has choruses of greater dignity, yet obviously indebted to this phase of Senecan influence in form. Alexander's Monarchicke Tragedies resemble those of Greville in their imitation of Seneca and in their treatment of classical subjects in the classical manner; but they differ in their complete lack of distinction in both substance and general form. They con- spicuously surpass Greville's plays, however, in the complexity and variety of their metres. In this respect they have no com- panion in the whole range of Enghsh choruses. This charac- teristic is ascribable to Gamier's influence.^'' In itself, how- ever, it does not constitute distinction; it rather emphasizes the meagreness of thought thus mechanically ornamented. Even at its best, Alexander's phrase is rhetorical as compared with Greville's. Both men's choruses are treatises, employing a great deal of exposition; the commonplaces are largely those that the authors read in Seneca. The dreariness of Alexan- der's one hundred and twenty choruses is their most conspicu- ous characteristic. All are variations of the theme later em- bodied in Johnson's Rasselas. At first glance it seems that a good deal of skill has been shown in ringing so many changes on a theme which, in spite of such formal variety, continues monotonous; yet second thoughts suggest that both the variety and the monotony probably denote rather the commonplace- ness of the theme than either skill or lack of it on the part of the author. In the drama of England, French Seneca never had the vogue of Itahan Seneca, partly because the influence from Italy came first, partly because the formahties of the French inter- pretation made but shght appeal to Enghsh dramatists. By the time that Enghsh drama had recovered from Italian « M. W. CroU, The Works of Fulke Greville, p. 33. •2 Schelling's Elizabethan Drama, II, IS. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 183 Seneca, it had developed a characteristically national type and discarded its Senecan model. Gifford says that there "was scarcely a play on the stage when Jonson first came to it, which did not avail itself of a chorus to waft its audience over sea and land or over wide intervals of time." While Gifford probably wishes to indicate the height of fashion to which the chorus had attained, his statement, in spite of its exaggeration, may be interpreted as implying that English playwrights had established their own form of chorus. This fact may be sufficiently illustrated by two signal examples, in both of which the narrative and the time-compressing fimctions are conspicuous; but in which the degrees of excel- lence admit of no comparison. The first example occurs in Dekker's version of Old Fortunatus. There are but two chor- uses, both serving as time and space compressors. The first one takes extreme advantage of its narrative function, trans- porting the audience in imagination several times over the breadth of the known world, showing Fortunatus in various romantic situations: the favorite of oriental princes, a prisoner in Spain, escaped to Turkey, thence to Babylon, and at last safely landed and in dialogue with the Sultan. At the end of this breathless journey, the second act of the drama begins. The next chorus, preceding the fourth act, narrates what should be logically the most important events of the plot, thus con- tributing to the pla3rivright's ease of composition by sparing him the pains of plot construction. If Dekker is not the au- thor of these choruses," his retention of them without the addition of others shows an appreciation of their usefulness, but no feeling that the chorus had other than a mechanical function. But the supereminent instance of the chorus in Eng- lish drama occurs in Henry the Fifth. Utihtarian in motive as was most of Shakespeare's work, these six stirring poems are as incapable as the dramas of being cabined and confined to a " Miss M. L. Hunt's Thomas Dekker, A Study, in Columbia University Studies, 1911, offers reasonable grounds for Dekker's being the author. In that case, his use of these choruses, so clearly an echo of greater ones, is but "the sincerest form of flattery." 184 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA merely mechanical function. The story was too big for the limited time of a performance; the theatre was too small for the adequate staging of the plot; the chorus was called in to relieve the situation. And having been called in as a purely mechanical aid, its mechanical fimction was emphasized and reiterated. Yet because it was Shakespeare's mechanical chorus and not another's, it contains an appeal to the exercise of the high deUghts of unagination, and is a poetic statement of the power of imagination in the ideal spectator. Hence it is rather a drop from this chorus to others of the type. In The Thracian Wonder, the soUtary chorus at the end of the first act interprets a dumb show of the shipwreck of the heroine and her husband and adds the narration of that part of their subsequent history which must be hastily passed over. In Romeo and Juliet there is one lonely chorus between the first act and the second; a chorus no better than some already considered, and worse than most. Dr. Johnson objected to it because it not only reiterates what the first act has already pre- sented, but also "relates it without the improvement of any moral sentiment."^ A better, if less interesting, reason is offered by Ulrici, who condemns it as "so empty, prosaic, and barren, and so wholly pointless."'^ This chorus, not in the quarto of 1597 nor in the First FoHo, appears first in the foUo of 1632. Its omission from the version of the play printed in Shakespeare's lifetime and from the folio published by his friends and admirers after his death, might well suggest that it was added for the exigency of a later performance, to do honor to some actor or some poetaster. It is a later addition by someone who had, obviously, small care for styHstic con- gruity. There is but one other occasional chorus in Shake- speare's plays, that in A Winter's Tale which bridges the six- teen years' lapse of time and which, poor as it is, serves a legitimate pm-pose and contains turns of expression much more Shakespearean than any in the chorus of Romeo and Juliet. " Fumess's Variorum Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, p. 85, note, outbid. NON-ORGANIC DRAMAHC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 185 In The Fall of Mortimer, left a fragment, with accompanying notes indicative of its argument, Jonson shows that he had a Senecan form of tragedy in mind. The four choruses furnish lyrical reactions on the plot without in any way serving as a substitute for that action. In Catiline, the choruses have as much variety as could be given to any four inter-act poems. In thought, in form, in rhythm, and in tendency and object, each is distinct from the others. The chorus at the end of the fourth act refers directly to the action of the play. The first chorus omits such reference, furnishing instead a larger view of the causes and conditions that have made possible the action of the first act. The chorus at the end of the second act is a prayer to Mars and Jove to protect Rome and to give her good magistrates. The third chorus is a lament for the frustration of the plot against Cicero. This chorus is con- spicuous for metrical Ughtness, affording thereby a most agree- able contrast to the oppressive thought in it. Those who think that Jonson is a heavy writer, will at least admit that he has his moments of beautiful ease. During this time, a lyric poet of abiUty turned his hand to tragedy and, in The Devil's Charter, showed himself a play- wright. Barnabe Barnes did not carry poetry over into drama, but he made a good acting play. He used the chorus for explanation and narration. He did not always distin- guish chorus and personages as to function, for at the end of act four, Guicchiardine has a narrative speech similar in func- tion to the earlier chorus; and in the fifth scene of the fifth act, the interlude of devils shows in its dialogue the same power to narrate the succeeding action that was earUer given to the one formal chorus. In Jasper Fisher's Fuimus Troes there is an attempt to do much the same thing that was done in Gorboduc, namely, to present early British history in dramatic form after the classi- cal manner, as far as structure and organization may be termed manner. Yet many of the songs are too much like those in the Pyramus and Thisbe interlude in A Midsummer-Night's 186 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA Dream to be taken seriously. Here and there one has a gleam of hope that they were not written by "base mechanicals" of the college world, but by deUberate comedians. For ex- ample, in the absurd lyric so curiously anticipative of Blake: All the spring Birds do sing: Now with high Then low cry. Flat, acute; And salute. The sun, bom Every mom. and its chorus: [All]: He's no bard that cannot sing The praises of the flowery spring, one is tempted for the moment to hope that the couplet is deUberately ambiguous, with deeply satiric reference to the song immediately preceding. Such construction, however, is probably but the lawless interpretation of a weary brain seeking refreshment at any cost. {b) Chorus Material in Non-Classical Form The class of plays in which chorus material is presented in forms unUke the Senecan chorus, is much smaller than the class just considered; but it is interesting because such develop- ment of the chorus is in hne with the evolution of EngUsh dra- matic form as a whole; that is, from definite models to greater freedom, from formal elements mutually exclusive to a har- mony in which these elements are still distinguishable, although bound organically into one whole. In this class of plays, the chorus material is not separable in form from prologue; and the extraneous parts constitute a background, as it were, which keeps its place during the acts, but which has the power of becoming a foreground in the intervals of the action. The frequency of Ovidian mythology in dramas of this sort points NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 187 to Italian rather than to classical influence. Mythological characters in The Rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune conduct the whole of the first act, making clear the rest of the drama, which is carried on by mortals. From these gods of the first act, Fortune and Venus are selected as chorus, officiating after the first four acts and taking part in the htmian action in the fifth act. Their chorus is mainly a d&)at or contention, in which their names are ahnost all that is classical about them. Although they are here regarded by the dramatist largely as impersonations of abstract quaUties, which was of course not^ wholly foreign to their character and significance among the | ^' Romans, they are made to share in a moral interlude, a partici- / pation imknown to their classical use. At the close. Fortune seems to win, for she has the last word and says without denial, "That Wisdom ruleth Love, and Fortune both." The play is practically a story within a story. The rivalry of Venus and Fortune is illustrated by their handling of the love affair of Hermione and FideUa. The puppet character of the human material is evident from Jupiter's suggestion that these two goddesses try their strength upon it. To give the victory to Fortune is in harmony with the EHzabethan notion of that power and may be the only reason why the enveloping action comes perilously near being more interesting than the drama proper. In Kyd's Spanish Tragedy the moraHstic conception and handling of the extraneous parts is evident. Two characters, the Ghost, of Senecan provenience, and Revenge, a morahty t'V'^i type of personage, imdertake the induction, the chorus, and the epilogue, parts differing from one another only in the fact of their location. The dialogue between these two speakers constitutes the frame in which each act of the drama is set. The Ghost comments and judges; Revenge comments and narrates. The Ghost speaks first and, in general, retrospec- "^ tively. Revenge comes second, with speeches which all look 188 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA ahead. The conception of both characters is allegorical, what- ever their functions, for in the last act, when Hieronymo and 1 Lorenzo have apparently become friends. Revenge is found to ibe asleep. This dialogue framework for the Spanish Tragedy shares somewhat in the atmosphere of the main story, for the last speeches of the Ghost and Revenge have all the melodra- matic exaggeration of the last scene of the last act, where the truly tragic impression left by the deaths of so many is de- graded by the stabbing of the friendly duke and by Hier- onjrmo's suicide. Such massacre is no more defensible than the glut of revenge indicated by the last words of that chorus speaker: For heere, though death hath end their miserie, He there begin their endles Tragedie." In Locrine, the next play to have a chorus, the ghost is not extraneous, but included in the action of the play and made a part of the dramatic fabric. Revenge, under the figure of '' Ate, is sole sustainer of the framework of the drama and inter- preter of the dumb shows. These pantomimes are intermeans in Gorboduc and in Tancred and Gismunda; in Locrine they constitute the opening scene of each act and are interpreted I by Ate. This partial absorption of the extraneity into the ( play proper is in hne with what has been said of the tendency i of English drama to make everything contribute to unity of action and singleness of effect, until the highest expression of that drama comes to resemble nothing so much as a seamless garment woven by life itself, with interpenetrating parts where nothing is extraneous. The framework of Locrine, while fashionably crowded with classical allusions and paral- lels, is more nearly expository and didactic than the frame- work of the Spanish Tragedy. Yet it does not leave on the reader the impression of dramatic will and purpose that is in- evitably left by the Ghost of Andrea and by Revenge. " "There" is Hell, where Tityus, Ixion^ and other much-cited personages are to have a holiday, while the foes of Hieronymo take their places and suffer their tortures. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 189 In Soliman and Perseda, the choruses consist of another dra- matization of a contention motive. In this play, the devices of Kyd's earUer play — ^assuming his authorship in this case — reappear, strengthened and, at least in number, reinforced. While the framework is itself a distinct drama, it equally ful- fils the conventional function of the chorus as spectator and narrator of the action. Love, Fortune, and Death consti- tute the rivals in this choric strife, appearing after aU five acts, repeating their contention upon each return, and managing, in the course of their squabble, to indicate the action of the pre- ceding act. Their fulfilment of choric function is noticeably incidental; they are interesting for their own sakes. Death is left alone at the end of the play, although Love and Fortune insist that they have not yielded to him. As one sign of the able management of a literary contention is the evenness with which the parts are sustained, it must be admitted that Kyd's spirited conduct of this debate merits its being accounted ex- cellent on that ground, at least. There is much rhetoric and some rant, but the interest is kept up steadily and not allowed to drop even at the end. In this respect it is an advance on The Rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune. So, too. The Taming of A Shrew, acted in the same year, affords another instance of one drama as framework for another. Still another drama with extraneous framework is Alphonsus, King of Arragon. Here Venus and the Muses act as chorus. The speeches be- tween acts are entitled "Prologue" in every case. They are identical in function, though not in form, with the choruses in Henry the Fifth, and are noteworthy as being the first con- spicuous instance of this specifically English function of the chorus. Peek's Old Wives' Tale, while supplying a framework, offers a complete novelty in the fact that its so-called extraneities create, by the reaction of their personages upon the drama proper, the only atmosphere in which the whole composition can be fairly viewed and its character appreciated. They\ thus hold the key to the secret of the author's intention. The ; ^^L 190 STUDIES m ENGLISH DRAMA realism of this framework marks no real advance upon that of A Shrew; its explanatory function, on the other hand, is exer- cised in a manner wholly unique, whereby it ahnost ceases to be extraneous in every respect but that of form. The close- ness with which the induction and the drama proper are inter- woven is only equalled by the clearness with which they are kept distinct. This induction gives a hint of the way the piece is to be interpreted. In view of the fact that The Old Wives' Tale may be regarded as a satire upon the dramatiza- tions of heroical romance;'^ it is perhaps not unimportant to note the satiric impUcations in the action of the piece: the ro- mance of the drama passes, but the common folk of the induc- tion remain. The two elements, as handled by Peele, serve to set ofiE realism and common sense against the nonsense of the romances. And yet not common sense either, for Madge and her auditors are themselves not safe from Peek's smiling irony. Unlike Peek's comedy, Robert Greene's James the Fourth in the enveloping action combines the supernatural, in Obiron, King of the Fairies, with the actual, in Bohan, a Scottish countryman much given to complaining of the hoUowness of city and court hfe. It is to convince Obiron of the justice of such complaint that Bohan has this play presented. Peele secured plausibility by keeping the supernatural out of the framework; Greene destroyed verisimilitude by introducing the supernatural into it. Summer's Last Will and Testament offers another example of plays that are framed by the extraneous parts. Will Summer, on the stage all the time Uke the Greek chorus, is far more interesting than the play. His mockery, his tireless invective, his audacity, appear at every turn. They belong to the same school of expression as Marston's and Jonson's prefaces, with- out the dignity of Jonson's. In his comments there may have been some attempt to keep alive the memory of the actual "E.g., Common Conditions, Sir Clyomon and Sir Clamydes, Orlando Furioso, etc. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 191 Will Summer's thrusts and gibes; but there was undoubtedly more of "pure Nash." The comment is sharp, sudden, reck- less; the satire trenchant. But it is not intellectual as Jon- son's is, and has only laughter as its motive. The personage of the title rdle further suggests the Greek chorus in that he enters the action of the drama as it nears its close. His com- ments then become extraneous in a new sense. After jeering at the "sermon" of Vertumnus, he himself deUvers one on the bestiality of drinking. Later, he animadverts upon study in rough and blustering phrase: "Nouns and pronouns, I pro- nounce you as traitors to boys' buttocks; syntaxis and prosodia, you are tormentors of wit, and good for nothing but to get a schoolmaster twopence a week. Hang, copies! Fly out, phrasebooks! let pens be turned to picktooths! Bowls, cards, and dice, you are the true Uberal sciences! I'll ne'er be a goose- quill, gentlemen, while I live." All idea of dignity as essential to the chorus must be abandoned in the case of dramas whose chorus is thus fused with the other extraneous parts. In all of them the poet had obviously in mind a composite which shall share the characteristics of each and all of the separate non- organic or extraneous forms and lose the idiosyncrasies of each. If " the proper position of the chorus in a regularly constructed drama is, like the witches in Macbeth, to form a mysterious musical background (not a foreground as in the Greek trag- edy);"'' then the Dido of Nash and Marlowe, published in 1594, may be regarded as a blundering first step in the right direction, since it has a mythological background, which only occasionally obtrudes upon the foreground, and has no formal extraneities. But as its very loose structure would hardly entitle it to be called "regularly constructed," and as its mytho- logical background is hardly "musical," it rather shows how much remains to be done in the dozen years until Macbeth than marks any noteworthy achievement in this direction. Yarrington's Two Tragedies in One, an unblent juxtaposition " Blackie, Genius and Character of the Greek Tragedy, p. xxxvi. 192 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA of commonplace realism and crude romance, shows extraneous matter serving as framework for four of the five acts of the drama. This framework consists of a three-cornered dialogue carried on by Homicide, Avarice, and Truth, in which the action is invariably announced but not invariably moralized, and is often ornamented with classical allusions. The chorus is not well used, but the clumsiness of the drama proper would scarcely argue for excellence in the extraneous parts. Jonson, Lti one sense the most classical of dramatists, is in another the most highly individualized and impressionistic. His independent use of current dramatic fashions was partly the result of a deeper knowledge of the Hterature of antiquity than his contemporaries had, and partly the driving force of temperament. Gifford calls attention to the fact that Mitis and Cordatus, in Emry Man Out of His Humor, named by Jonson the Grex or chorus, mark a function not known to the ancient drama "in standing distinct from the scene and occupy- ing the place of critics." That depends on what is meant by the term criticism. Certainly Jonson's Grex is not critical exactly as the Greek chorus was critical. Jonson's chief in- terest is in ideas. With him, criticism excludes all sympathy and poetry and is a mingled affair of intellect and spleen, with a dash or two of vitriohc humor. He is so fond of this kind of criticism that he has often well-nigh swamped the ac- tion in the enveloping and accompanying conmient. Of the two plays, Catiline and Sejanus, in which Jonson is most strictly classical, only the first named has a chorus. In his other dramas, Jonson modifies the traditional conception of the chorus in every way possible to his genius, not only quite destroying the conventional form, but greatly modifying the function. He incorporates into the criticism undertaken by his choruses not only exposition and judgment of the action, but discussion of literary and technical matters suggested by the play." The chorus in Every Man Out of His Humor ful- fils a varied function. It sometimes offers detailed criticism " Cf. later discussion of content of extraneities, pp. 241-248, passim. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 193 of the technicalities of dramatic structure and presentation, for the purpose of instructing the audience; sometimes merely indicates the place where the action is carried on; sometimes consists merely of quick, pointed characterization of a newly- appearing dramatis persona; sometimes is a humorous ob- servation dashed with wit, as after the first speech ofSogU- ardo, when Mitis says, "Why, this fellow's discourse were nothing but for the word humor," and Cordatus repUes, "O, bear with him; an he should lack matter and words too, 'twere pitiful." This chorus embodies some of its author's greatest literary sins. Jonson is so keen to have his meaning caught by the audience that he cannot wait for his play to reveal it, but must be eternally guilty of the crime of Mitis, which Cor- datus censures at one point by saying, "O, you forestall the jest." In Cynthia's Revels Jonson begins to ring his changes on the idea of the chorus. Crites, as his name indicates, is logically less in the action than outside it, and is constantly trying to measure men and their caUbre by the standard of Jonson's moral ideal. Yet when the action of an entire drama is so subordinate to criticism as here, Crites cannot justly be called the only chorus. He is not chorus as are Cordatus and Mitis, for he is in the plot and they are not. From Jonson's constant references to comedy as a criterion, it might seem that his choruses were inspired more by Terentian prologue than by classical tragedy. But in Timber^" he says very distinctly that "the parts of a comedy are the same with a tragedy;" and later," that, since unity of effect is the one aim of a writer, "the episodes and digressions in a fable are the same that household stuff and other furniture are in a house." If one be tempted to imagine Jonson's house overcrowded, one must nevertheless assent to his theory. The Staple of News, coming next after Catiline, contains a chorus which is a reversion to Jonson's favorite type of running commentary in prose dia- logue, to which he himself gave the name "intermean or chorus." *" ScheJIing's edition, p. 81. 1 Schelling's edition, p. 85. 194 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA It consists of "foiir gentlewomen, lady-like attired," named Mirth, Tattle, Expectation, Censure. The chief speaker for the quartette announces as soon as possible that their ptirpose is to see plays "and sit upon them," and "arraign both them and their poets." In the first of these choruses, Jonson's play. The Devil is an Ass receives high praise; the Devil of Edmonton, not Jonson's, is merely mentioned without praise; and The Staple of News feared as duU because it has neither devil nor vice in it. In the second intermean. Mirth tells her companions that the play has three or four vices whom she finds among the dramatis personae. When further objection is made that there is "never a fiend" to carry the vices away. Mirth explains, "That was the old way, .... but now they are attired like men and women of the time, the vices male and female. Prodigahty, like a young heir, and his mistress Money, .... pranked up like a fine lady." There is also an allusion to current events in the phrase "an honourable princess," used in reference to the Infanta of Spain,^^ whose match with Charles had just been broken off. In the third intermean, the gossips at first flout aldermen, and then satirize themselves, offering an ironic thrust at people of their sort, whether men or women: "Whether it were true or not, we gossips are bound to beUeve it, an't be once out and a-foot: how should we entertain the time else, or find ourselves in fashionable discourse for all companies, if we did not credit all, and make more of it in the reporting?" The final fling, however, is more significant, a complaint as if from the Puritans, of the universahty of plays at the expense of education; a complaint that was all too soon to have its cause removed by the increasingly efficacious oppo- sition to the stage which finally succeeded in closing the theatres. The last intermean is both a criticism of the author's management of the plot and a satirical comment on the ab- surdities of the fourth act. In the choruses as well as in the title of The Magnetic Lady, or Humors Reconciled, there is " See note in Gifiord and Cunningham's edition of the Works. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 195 a reference to earlier plays. Although the comment largely takes the form of critical exposition of play-writing, play-act- ing, and play-seeing, satire is freely spent on those people engaged in these three practices who do not meet all the tests of the Jonsonian standard. Of Jonson's many "sons," not one could wear his mantle. Some were wise enough not to try to do so. Thomas Ran- dolph's work has a gayety and brightness not due to any imi- tation of that of his hterary father. In only one of his pieces has he any chorus-like portions. These, in The Muses' Looking- Glass, belong to the framework type. The speakers are three, Bird and Mistress Flowerdew, two Puritans who peddle small wares in Blackfriars theatre, and Roscius, one of the actors, who begs them to stay to see this play, as by so doing they will modify their aversion to the stage. They remain as chorus, commenting on the play at irregular intervals. At the end, they have some doubts of their own spiritual immaculateness and a good deal of admiration for the rather ingenious moraK- zation of the play they have seen. The satire is, of course, evident. The only human interest is in Bird and Flowerdew, personages wholly extraneous. This play is another instance of the fact that the framework of a drama may have in itself an interest to surpass, in dramatic value, the interest of the play proper. This chorus is made also to serve the purposes of satire and of hxunor. It is in no sense subsidiary to the drama, but rather makes the drama subordinate to itself. These illustrations of English use of the chorus in drama do not prove that the chorus was only a temporary form; but a table of all the extant dramas that have choruses shows the fact conclusively, for it shows, by its chronology, a period from 1562 to 1586 when choruses occur only at intervals of several years; then a period from 1586 to 1611 when ahnost no year : is unmarked by a chorus. From 1611 to 1634, there is a falling-off, corresponding to the earlier "coming-on" period. . It is also worth notice that the drama of the Stuart period seems to have no choruses except in the one instance of The 196 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA Prophetess, which in 1622 staged two choruses and a dumb show. Why Fletcher and Massinger should thus seem to have brought back the past is a phenomenon capable of more than one interpretation. It may be explained on the grounds of stage economy; the dumb show and the choruses disposed quickly of some of the most important events of the plot and left time for the elaboration of the final effects so dear to these authors. It may be explained also on the assumption — an assumption having the potentiaUty of fact — that this chorus, extraneous only in form, has been preserved because it em- bodied so much of the plot, while merely conventional choruses have perished. Whatever the reason for this chorus, the drama is in tone and style so unlike those that had dumb shows earlier, that the recrudescence is not agreeable. Yet it is in- teresting as attesting the survival of that one kind of chorus which alone was pecuhar to English use and which was carried to its greatest excellence in Henry the Fifth. As possibly clinching proof that the chorus was dead by 1625, it may be mentioned that Richard Brome did not attempt to introduce it into any of his plays imder either Jonsonian or classical forms. If the device could have succeeded, it is surely not going too far to say that Brome would doubtless have employed it. III. The Induction Character and Function. — Examples of Variety of Types. From what has been said of the short life and the handicap- ping effect of the chorus in EngUsh drama, it may justly be held as exotic. The induction merits almost the same com- ment, for its career not only resembles that of the chorus in brevity and superfluousness, but is identical with it in some of its manifestations, notably in the framework type of chorus. The chief distinction to be drawn is that in the latter case the opening scene or prologue is continued between acts as cho- rus, whereas the induction is without continuation. Although these are technical rather than actual differences, the indue- NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 197 tion as such seems to sustain a less artistic relation to the drama than does the almost identical framework-chorus. If the induction is in some cases almost the same as the chorus, it is in others not unrelated to the prologue in fimction. While the chorus should contribute an essential part of the emotional and Uterary effect of the drama, the prologue, being an affair between the author and his audience, has no necessary relation to the effect of the drama. Two sorts of induction, correspond- ing to these distinctions, are found in drama. The time of their greatest popularity is, roughly speaking, the last thirteen years of Elizabeth's reign,^ although they were known before and after that time. They are often used as settings for pro- logues; occasionally also as a medium through which the poet may present his ideas to the audience.^ They also serve as emotional indicators of the drama which they introduce.' But inductions fall short of truly choric power because, being dramatic scenes, they cannot interpret the play with the im- mediacy of the chorus; and of truly prological power because the author cannot speak to the audience in his own person. Inductions most truly deserve their name when the plays which they introduce depend upon them, in effect at least, for their existence.'* Not all inductions, however, lead into the play in any vital sense. Some are used as means to satirize and ridicule;^ others to praise an individual;' some, and these are invariably inductions in the best sense, are solely for artistic ends;' some are pronouncedly didactic and critical;* some are mere bids for a laugh;' some embody the spirit of the old estrif or dibat,^'' resembling in this respect the contemporary ' Inference drawn from dated plays. 2 In Jonson and Marston. ' Cf. some revenge plays; induction to Marston's What You Will. * The two Shrevb dramas, etc. ^ Jonson's, etc. Cf. Symmes, p. 148, note. • Misfortunes of Arthur. ' OU Wives' Tale, etc. ' Jonson's. ' Shakespeare's Shrew. "• Mucedorus; Soliman and Perseda. 198 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA chorus-method. The induction is found in cycle plays," al- though not as a form consciously used. There it is often merely an antecedent action in a continuous history, although it may be as well a mere curtain raiser without obvious pertinency.'^ ] Inductions are almost invariably in contrast to the action or 1 story of the drama they introduce; their natural use seems to be in connection with dramas whose action is framed in a contrasting action. Peek's Wily Beguiled has an induction in contention style without choric continuation; The Misfortunes of Arthur has as introduction a fanciful and labored representation arranged merely to lead up to a fulsome compliment to the queen; Fabel's fettering of the devil in The Merry Devil of Edmonton is an induction having some sUght allegorical reference to the ensuing drama and employing one of the dramatis personae in its action. Shakespeare's Shrew has as induction the chorus- type extraneity of the old Shrew cut down and deprived of continuation. It is less artistic, considered in its relation to the main action, because Sly is brought on the stage and then forgotten; but it is more complete in dramatic details. Sly the second is more of a character than his original. Sly the first is easily convinced of his changed identity; Sly the second requires more persuasion, so that the noble lord must add his voice to that of his servants. Consequently, the second in- duction is not only longer than the first, but is also more co- herent dramatically. On the other hand, because Shake- speare makes no further use of Sly, the induction seems a mere appeal to those in the audience who would relish a practical joke, and is a rather clumsy adjunct of the drama. The in- duction to Antonio and Mellida represents all the actors as coming upon the stage and quizzing each other concerning their various r61es and characters. This is exactly the material used by Jonson in Every Man Out of His Humor in the para- graphs of analytical description entitled "Characters of the " York Vn as preliminary to York IX. " Chester Lazarus, where the title story is preceded by the story of Cecus. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 199 Persons," but here forced on the audience by Marston as part of the performance. Possibly something more was meant by this than is evident on the face of it, for the plays belong to the years of the War of the Theatres, and may contain some allusion now missed, which was clear to those concerned. In Marston's What You Will, the style of the induction suggests Jonson. This induction, written in 1601, may have been alluded to in the next year by Polonius, who quotes verbatim a large part of it: "Is't comedy, tragedy, pastoral, moral, nocturnal, or historie? — Faith, perfectly neither, but even What You Will." If the original of this speech of Polonius were aimed at Shakespeare, the jest is then on Marston, since "he laughs best that laughs last." In the induction to The Malcontent, there are statements which Jonson seems to have made use of. Sly says of the audience at a play: "any man that hath wit, may censure, if he sit in the twelve-penny roome." In the induction to Bartholomew Fair, Jonson makes the scrivener greatly extend this hberty, allowing every spec- tator, imder certain more or less witty provisos, to censure to a degree exactly equalling the price of his admission. Middle- ton's inductions are prefixed to Michaelmas Term and to The Game at Chess}^ Both are allegorical and symboUcal. The three terms at law, personified, carry on the action of the first drama; Error and Ignatius Loyola that of the second. They are quite imlike in tone. In Michaelmas Term, the mood is jestingly satirical; in The Game at Chess, the satire is much more biting and the play is presented through the agency of Error, whom Loyola awakens from a lovely dream. This dream is then enacted as the play. In this case, the induc- tion logically brings on the play; it is so much a necessary prepa- ration as to follow the prologue. There is no extant prologue , to Michaelmas Term; the induction is merely the presentation ^i,jy by dramatis personae of a Uttle jovial satire and of the an- 1 " Your Five Gallants has a pantomimic prelude which is not a true in- duction. It is described in the stage direction as Bactenus quasi inductio. It may, therefore, have been expanded in the actual performance. 200 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA nouncement of the general course of the play. The second and third plays of the Parnassus group have inductions as well as prologues. In the second, the prologue speaker is halted in his lines by the stage keeper, who pours ridicule upon the h)rpoc- risy of prologues in general by crying, Sirra, begone! you play noe prologue here, Call noe rude hearer gentle, debonaire. We'Ie spend no flatteringe on this carpinge croude. Nor with gold tearmes make each rude dullard proude. In the third play, the general prose dialogue of the induction precedes the blank verse prologue. The induction is long, con- ducted by four personages in series of dialogues, two and two. Although the talk covers matters concerning the two pre- vious plays, the tone is satirical and the dialogue largely horse- play. In The DownfaU of Robert, Earl of Huntington, there is another instance of the induction's really leading into the play. But such close relation is not usual. In this particular case, the induction may, by a stretch of the imagination, be regarded as a kind of framework type of chorus, since it explains Skelton, who later reUes on that explanation when he forgets to keep to the rdle assigned him for the play. There is thus, throughout the main action, a recurrence of the action indicated by the induction. IV. The Prologue, the Epilogue, and the Dedication Prologues and Epilogues far antedate Other Forms in England. — (a) The Dedication. — Many Classes. — Divers Values and Functions. — (b) The Prologue and the Epilogue. — Their Mediaeval Origins. — ^Their Functions and Characters — Their English Uses. — Their Popularity. — Their Speak- ers and Writers. — ^Written both in Verse and in Prose. — ^They reveal Par- tisanship in Reformation Drama. — ^They fill Gaps in the Histoiy of Early Drama. — ^They disclaim Personal Satire. — Their Metresl — ^In the Stuart Transition Period. — Summary. As thus outlined, the induction has less significance in Eng- Ush drama than have the other non-organic or extraneous NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 201 forms, and appears during a much shorter period. While the formal chorus and the induction may be regarded as exotic, the other formal extraneities seem, in contrast, little short of indigenous. They are almost co-eval with the regular drama,"- and remain throughout its course, one sometimes more a fashion than the other, yet all, save dedicatory epistles, dating from the earliest times. These non-organic elements — ^prologues, epi- logues, and addresses of various kinds — ^present the author, editor, or publisher face to face with the person or persons who it is known or hoped will be well-disposed toward the poet and the play; they are too distantly related to the drama to have any real influence upon it, either to hinder its career or to mar its form; and doubtless their long life is due somewhat to this fact. A more base, but no less vaUd, reason for their continuance lies in the money compensation. Five shillings for prologue and epilogue, on occasion ten shillings,^ from Henslowe and other dictators to plajrwrights; a "brace of Angels" from the obliged lord to the writer of a dedicatory epistle — such remuneration may weU have been grateful to threadbare poets with a thirst for sack. The possibility, also, of more than mere money returns, in the case of dedications, must largely have determined the enormous vogue of this form. Printers' letters were, as some of them specifically acknowledged, for the printer's profit, yet occasionally, as for instance in the cases of Blount and Kirkman, printers were prompted by a real love of literature and a wish to share it with all possible readers.* Prologues and epilogues are presiunably addressed to hearers; other forms, exclusive of the induction, to readers. Although there are extremely early instances of prologues and epilogues, the other forms are in the main found after the invention of printing. There are a few examples that may indicate manu- ' I.e., drama as distinguished from liturgical plays. 'Cf. Henslowe's Diary (Collier edition), pp. 229 and 207. * Kirkman had copies of nearly all the plays of any worth before his day, and evidently had a literary interest in them, quite apart from com- mercialism. 202 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA script publicity: namely, the stanza of four verses that follows the Doomsday of the Chester cycle: To hym this booke belonges, I wishe contynuall health, • L Pray ever, In daily vertues for to flow, With fioudes of godly wealth; the epilogue which follows the Te Deum in the Digby Mag- dalen: If anything amiss be, Blame cunning, and not me. I desire the readers to be my friend, If there be any amiss, that to amend; and the prologue to the "far earUer type"^ of drama entitled Burial and Resurrection of Christ, where the appeal is far more poetical: A soul that list to sing of love Of Christ .... Rede this treyte, it may tiim move. And may him teche lightly with awe. Of the sorow of Mary sumwhat to knawe. If these recognitions of readers antedate printing, they yet have no function not shared by those that come after, though they have naturally less range and variety than later pieces with a like aim. In style they are simpler than their succes- sors of post-renaissance times and are distinguishable in form from the drama to which they are a sort of epilogue and prologue. (a) The Dedication The inference that the classical Renaissance brought the Uterary patronage of antiquity more abundantly to the notice of English writers is inevitably forced upon anyone who reads the dedications prefixed to EngUsh plays. They began to be written in 1566 and almost without exception referred to classi- * Cf. A. W. Ward, History of EngUsh Dramatic Literature, I, 96. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 203 cal parallels. In the year just noted, John Studley addressed to Lord Cecil a translation of the Agamemnon of Seneca.^ But the example which he set was not universally followed, for the author of play or translation was not invariably the writer of the dedication. A printer sometimes offered an "orphant" play to a noble lord, or a friend to letters exhumed a buried play and found a titled patron for it. Actors signed, although they did not write, the prefatory matter of Shakespeare's and of Beaumont and Fletcher's first foUos. In the case of Brome's plays, a dilettante who happened to have the same name edited the plays and wrote most of the prefaces and dedications. In that expressive age, the professional men of letters were not easily distinguishable from the amateurs, for all alike had solved the riddle of an adequate style. Dedications as they have come down to us, are of various classes: those to definitely named men and women known more or less famiharly to the writer; those addressed to the readers imder that title; those of more or less hterary charac- ter, facetious or fantastical, addressed to fictitious dedicatees, such as the World, Signior Nobody, the ghosts of Hannibal and Scipio. But such imaginative flights are exceedingly rare, More frequently, institutions are dedicatees: the Inns of Court, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the court of the rul- ing sovereign, the City of London. Once, the Queen's Majesty's Company of players is a dedicatee; and more than once, shoe- makers and 'prentices are suitable dedicatees of plays written to honor the "gentle craft" and its fellows. The largest class, that of individual dedicatees, includes king, queen. Prince Henry, various dukes and earls, baronets, knights; women, both titled and bourgeois; gentlemen, both famous and unknown. Fellow poets are often, and in some cases pathetically, addressed in dedicatory epistles. Dedications have divers values. Rarely, one may help to determine an epoch in dramatic history, as for example, Thomas Newton's dedication to the collected Tenne Tragedies of Seneca ' Mentioned in J. O. Halliwell's Dictionary of Old Plays, p. S. 204 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA which his legal confreres had translated and pubHshed at vari- ous times previously. This dedication was one of the many and varied attempts to justify the stage against the Puritans. Although the general quarrel is too well known to need more than mention, Newton's letter is interesting in its relation to one result of the controversy. The situation of the contestants was such that attacks upon the drama resulted in driving it back from the promised land of art for art's sake to the artis- tically barren ground of moral justification. Newton was, of course, a friend to drama; yet probably no one man did more to start this retreat than he in this dedication,' though it is not impossible that the state of siege in which drama so long re- mained was the real reason for the power ascribed to Newton's letter. T'he Puritan charge included the assertion that drama was immoral in tendency and in influence. Although Newton makes no attempt to justify drama, very wisely confining his comment to Seneca, the reference is obviously broader. He writes to confute "some sqeymish Areopagites" who have "sur- myzed" that Seneca praised ambition, cruelty, and inconti- nence, and in some cases ratified tyranny; and that he therefore "can not be digested without great danger of infection." "If it might please these hostile commentators" Newton writes, "to mark and consider the circumstances, why, where, and by what maner of persons such sentences are pronounced, they can not in any equity otherwise choose, but find good cause ynough to leade them to a more fauorable and milde resolution. For it may not at any hand be thought and deemed the direct mean- ing of Seneca himself, whose whole wryt)Tiges .... are so farre from countenauncing Vice, that I doubt whether there bee any amonge all the Catalogue of Heathen wryters, that with more grauity of Philosophical sentences, more waightiness of sappy words, or greater authority of sound matter beateth down sinne, loose lyfe, dissolute dealinge, and unbrydled sen- suality," etc., a passage interesting not only as embodying the exalted opinion EngUsh playwrights held of Seneca, but as ' Symmes, op. cit., p. 66. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 205 showing how inadequately such a reply met the real objection, in spite of its general good sense. This particular line of apol- ogy and defence appears again and again throughout the coures of English drama,' specifically in both prologues and epilogues, and implicitly in many choruses, thus substantiating what has akeady been said about the danger of ascribing too much po- tency to Newton's dedication. Many of the tragedies in this collection of Newton's had already been published with dedications. It was quite a com- mon occurrence for dedications not to be contemporaneous with their dramas. In the early part of the period under con- sideration, dramas were written to be acted without any thought of publication through printing, and were consequently with- out dedications. These additions were sometimes made many years after the play was written. But when plays were almost simultaneously staged and published, as they came to be after Shakespeare's time, the dedication is presumably of ten written at the same time as the prologue and the epilogue. Examples of the first class are Heywood's dedication of Marlowe's Jew of Malta, and many addresses of stationers and publishers. To the second class belong numbers of dedications by Shirley, Ford, and their contemporaries. The amount of dedicatory material prefixed to a play varies, from the brief Latin dedica- tion in Marston's Malcontent, to the eight dedications in Ran- dolph's Jealous Lovers^ in both Latin and EngUsh. Dedicatory epistles are much more monotonous than pro- logues and epilogues, as they consist largely of personal compli- ment addressed to the dedicatee and of more or less self -depre- ciation of the author. Indeed, the apologetics of dedications constituted a convention that was censured in its own time: Alexander Brome, in the dedication of Richard Brome's plays, condemns in no uncertain terms the hypocrisy of the general custom. In view of the fact that the commercial and ambitious ' Cf. infra, p. 243. ' Plurafity in dedications was a contemporary fashion, seen perhaps more frequently in connection with poems than with dramas, but evident in Sun's Darling, and in the revised version of Tancred and Gismunda. 206 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA desires of the writer must have been known to the dedicatee on principle if not in the particular instance, these repeated decla- rations of unworthiness are denuded of every shred of charm. Their only excuse, and it has been shown' to be at least a suf- ficient explanation, lies in the contemporary conditions affect- ing the economic position of the dramatist. The securing of patronage was often a vital necessity. If, in too many cases, the tone is over-laudatory and the expressions are oratorical and studied, yet now and then, as in Heywood's epistles, the writer's happy spirit imparts freshness to the old phrases; or, as in Shirley's dedication to Prynne, his quick-glancing mind dis- covers some novel aspect of an old idea. But the tone of dedi- cations is necessarily monotonous, for in the nature of things innovation would be difficult, and if attempted might be so misunderstood as to fail of its object. In the case of addresses prefixed to complete editions of a great man's work, some of the foregoing comment must be modified. Where the advantage to the dedicator is no longer the sole, or even the chief consideration, the tone of almost servile adulation yields to one of manly confidence. Moreover, the critical function of these addresses must be taken into ac- count, as it serves to throw light not only upon the poet, but also upon his art. Sometimes it is classical or enduring criti- cism, as in Jonson's estimate of Shakespeare; sometimes it is only fashionable and temporary, as in Shirley's opinion of Beaumont and Fletcher; but in either case, it has essential or historical importance and sometimes both. Of anything like folio or definitive editions of a dramatist, there are five exam- ples in approximately the period covered by this paper: the foHo edition of Jonson, 1616, put through the press by the poet himself; that of Shakespeare, 1623; the collection of Lyly's six greatest comedies printed in 1632; Marston's tragedies and comedies, 1633; and the foUo edition of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1647. The editions of Lyly, of Shakespeare, and of Beaumont ' Cf. The Literary Profession in the Elizabethan Age, by Phoebe Sheavyn, Manchester, 1909. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 207 and Fletcher were all financed and engineered by printers and publishers, with the willing though less important collaboration of actors interested in perpetuating the memory of great dra- matic poets. Lyly's comedies, as pubUshed by Edward Blount, contain printer's addresses only — one dedicatory, the other to the reader — ^but reveal a printer who was at the same time an appreciator. Men of letters wrote, though actors signed, the prefatory matter of the folios of Shakespeare and of Beaumont and Fletcher. In the work which Ben Jonson saw through the press, there is none of this ornament. The Shakespeare folio is thus the first edition in which the dedications are for more than one play. The Beaumont and Fletcher foUo is mod- elled after the Shakespeare folio, as is acknowledged in the dedi- cation addressed to the survivor of the dedicatees of the 1623 volume. Doubtless Jonson and Shirley were both actuated in their criticism by a wish to say nothing but good of the dead; but time has decided in favor of the critical acumen of Jonson. Yet both said, in their different ways, very much the same things; they merely applied them to different subjects. Had Shirley been a better critic, he might not have been able to follow Jonson's lead with such good will. The critical func- tions of such dedications are to be noted also in dedications of single plays, although the expression of them is less deliberate and conscious. These lesser dedications often constitute rec- ords of the history of the play dedicated.^" They may contain all sorts of matter suited to the situation existing between a possible patron and a suitor for his favors; but as a fact they seldom show such range, confining themselves, for the most part, to compliment and flattery, with references, more or less obscure, to biographical facts. 1° Cf. Shirley's Gentleman of Venice; Cokaine's Obstinate Lady; Heywood's addresses and dedications generally. 208 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA (b) The Prologue and the Epilogue There remain for consideration those non-organic parts of drama that have been longest and best known, namely, pro- logues and epilogues. The latter form, throughout the period of drama here considered, has been less important and less prominent than the former. It had its germ in the Te Deum, as has been noted. As time passed, it received accretions which, whether musical or verbal, were largely glorifications of God, or of the hero or the heroine of the drama. In the EngUsh cycles, God, Jesus, Mary, Herod, and others are recipients of this kind of notice, which is greater or less without apparent regard to precedent or standard. Sometimes there is obvious reversion to earlier forms, as for instance, in the Towneley Juditium and the Croxton Sacrament, where the Te Deum is the sole conclusion. In the Digby Magdalen the Te Deum pre- ceding the actual conclusion of the play serves to accentuate the epilogical character of this part. The musical origin of the epilogue doubtless accounts for the fact that the epilogues in many of the cycle plays are distinctly lyrical in tone and that lyrical quaUty is f ovmd in epilogical speeches in moraUty plays of a much later date.*' The epilogue addressing spectators in farewell is found clearly functioning in the York Baptism of Jesus, where John turns to the audience and gives them the blessing of God; but it is not separated from the text of the last speech of the play proper nor has it the mimdane quaUty that is impUed in the ordinary use of the term "epilogue." In the Digby Conversion of St. Paul, however, the play ends with what is a true epilogue in everything but name, in which the actors, "lack3Tig lytturall scyens," apologize for their crude performance. This expres- sion of humihty characterizes scores of epilogues in later plays, some of which are formally termed epilogues, while others are un- named and as informal as the epilogues of Terence and Plautus. "■Cf. Wit and Science, Roister Doister, Wealth and Health, Disobedient Child, Damon and Pithias, etc. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 209 The most obvious classification of epilogues is into those that "draw from" the play and those that do not. Of the first class, either the subject-matter of the epilogue carries on the subject- matter of the drama by means of specific reference, or the dramatic illusion is kept up by the fact that the speaker of the epilogue is one of the leading dramatis personae. Under this second condition, the epilogue has a tendency to be infor- mal. Jonson, with characteristic amplitude, permits Macilente, in Every Man Out of His Humor, both an informal and a formal epilogue. It will be remembered also that Rosalind speaks the epilogue to ^5 You Like It, and Volpone the epilogue to the play of that title. Of epilogues thus assigned, the subject- matter as well as the rdle of the speaker is apt to be largely referential to the play. By sheer force of position, the epilogue was deprived of many of the functions of the prologue. It could excuse the play and send the audience away pleased, but its field was so narrow that the danger of monotony was often upon the dramatist before he could see to escape it. The epilogue was usually perfunc- tory and conventional, when prepared and not extempore. In the latter case, it might, in emergency, have very real value in saving the day for play or actors or in intensifying a dramatic triumph. But of these impromptu epilogues there is all too little trace, though they must have existed, since the drama of the time received so many impromptu contributions. Doubt- less, the impromptu prologue was also frequent,'^ especially in the days when the prologue and the epilogue approached equiva- lency. For the careers of the two forms are not parallel. The history of the prologue is much more varied than that of the epilogue. The prologue is the earliest of all extraneous parts of English drama to attain conscious form." It is recognized dm-ing the period of cyclical plays, for it occurs sporadically in all the great collections of miracle plays, and with very definite '2 Cf. the extempore prologue of Posthast, at the beginning of Act II of Ristriomastix, and Sly's statement, in the Induction to The Malcontent, that he will give a prologue extempore. "Cf. York XII: Annunciation. 210 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA extraneousness, sometimes, in single plays. For example, in one of the Norwich plays," two prologues are provided to meet two milike conditions of representation. Although it does not outlast the epilogue, it is. more frequently found in extant plays. Whether this fact be due to material losses or to less tangible causes can not be determined; yet, from fre- quent hints in the drama from time to time, of the epilogue as a vehicle for apology, those plays that needed no excuse may conceivably have been sometimes presented without any. More- over, the genealogy of the prologue makes its explanatory func- tion clear and will account for its use in many dramas of the time. It served both the changing conventions and the varying needs of a growing drama, bringing before a large and hetero- geneous audience topics that would not otherwise get a popular hearing; and, although it almost entirely fails to reflect the social changes of contemporary England, and has compara- tively little to say of other movements, leaving the major part of all such matters to the drama proper, it contains indications of the progress of the Reformation, of the War of the Theatres, and of the Puritan Attack, ever increasing its reaction to this opposition until, in the reigns of James and Charles I, its utterances are ominously darkened by the clouds of the final storm. In English drama, both prologue and epilogue are early found associated with tragedy as well as with comedy, in dis- regard of classical usage and perhaps in unconscious recogni- tion of the essential artificiality of the forms. Yet it is to a knowledge of the prologues and epilogues of classical antiquity that EngUsh usage is due. Even the tradition of the Roman mimus, to which some prologues seem traceable, is at bottom classical; and the possible influence of the prological portions of folk-drama may also be classical, since the schoolmaster has always linked Boeotia to Parnassus." The subsidiary influ- ence of the St. George and Sword plays must have accounted " Text B of the Grocers' Pageant. " Cf. Chambers, Mediaeval Stage, I, 219. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 211 for some of the sporadic traces of classical usage. But as humanistic learning spread, and as drama rapidly matured both in form and in structure, these forces necessarily dwindled even to the vanishing point, while the influence of Terence and Plautus expanded. The prologues of Terence, whence later writers undoubtedly received many suggestions for their own handling of these forms, are personal ebullitions, not unlike Jonson's in this respect; and Terence's attitude toward his au-( dience is somewhat bullying when he conveys information, as if the spectators were children who had to be coerced in order that ideas might reach their minds. The prologues of Plautus, on the other hand, have more variety both of tone and of ref- erence, and offer t)^es that later were of wider popularity in EngUsh drama than were those of Terence. The sharp, familiar | talk to the audience is heard in the prologues of both these/ comedy writers, but in Plautus the prological material extendsj over a discussion of the plot and the characters of the drama. \ Plautus also personifies abstractions and allots to them the presentation of introductory material. The epilogues of Ter-i ence are characteristically brief and informal, being hardly more than the request for applause, and spoken generally by one of the cast as he leaves the stage. Occasionally this speech is given to some other actor. Although in Plautus the epi- logue is often spoken by the whole troup of comedians, it is sometimes spoken by a single player and sometimes by a special actor, chosen only for this part. All these types are foimd in Enghsh prologues and epilogues, with inevitable developments to suit the growth of Enghsh drama and the changing relations between people and stage. Whatever keenly concerned the stage was likely to find ut- terance in prologues; with regard to other matters, that was as the author chose. Prologues falling under any of the classifica- tions here given had the inevitable defects of their moral or utilitarian purposes, and, at least in the early years, showed very few literary or artistic quaUties. Yet, at the other ex- treme, there are prologues as literary as sonnet form and idea 212 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA can make them. Between these limits there is a wide variety in form, in quality, in function. Of frequent occurrence are epic or narrative prologues, deKvered by personages ranging from Ghosts and Homer down to Usping children in arms; ex- pressed in every shade of tone and grade of quahty, from the merely perfunctory of the average dramatist up to the intensi- ties of Jonson; and comprising the gay and the grave, the jovial, the merely clever, the "witty," and the "conceited." Although satirical prologues are comparatively infrequent, it is no unusual thing to find part of a prologue here and there given over to ridicule of a prevailing fashion in speech, dress, or mode of thought. The merely expository prologue is fre- quent to weariness, and is hardly to be distinguished from the pedestrian, perfunctory one. The apologetic prologue, the continuation of the argument begun in Thomas Newton's dedication, never disappears from EngUsh drama, whether it defend the play written during the Reformation or that one staged in the last years of the reign of Charles I. Straight through the lifetime of Enghsh drama the cry is, "Our play is pure and moral; you will be better for seeing and hearing it." From the morahties down to Fletcher and Massinger, the slogan changes only in its vocabulary. The prologue speaker in Everyman declares: This mater is wonders precyous, But the entent of it is more gracyous And swete to here awaye; and the writer of the prologue for a revival of Beaumont and Fletcher's Loyal Subject refers to the general characteristics of Fletcher's work as sufficiently identifying this piece: The mirth joined with grave matter and in,tent To yield the hearers profit, with delight. It is also to be noted that the advertisement of the play in the prologue was of only two kinds in the early history of the drama — a play was declared to be either for instruction or for de- I NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 213 light — and few and rare were those in the second category." In spite of the fact that not a few prologues echo the Horatian golden mean, "eke mirth and also care," most of those that do so belong to the plays with a "sad" purpose, and use Horace's recipe as a pillmaker might use a few more grains of sugar. The early prologues, advertising tiresome didacticism as mirth, ( may be compared with the equally inconsistent prologues of the decadence, which, without moral uplift, expressly claimed that advantage as one of the effects of hearing the play. As already noted, prologue material is both dramatically and expositorily presented. There are numerous inductions which do the work of prologues, having sometimes all the value of a curtain raiser and again being merely conversations between personages interested diversely in the drama to follow. Some- times these induction-prologues literally lead into the play and bear a closer relation to it than the ordinary prologue bears. For instance, ghosts incite to vengeance and the drama is con- sequently set going; goddesses wish to test their powers and are adjudged respective strength according as they handle well or ill the human drama by which they prove their abiUty. Such prologues and epilogues have been suflSciently treated under the chorus and the induction. It may be noted in pass- ing, however, that such non-organic elements are always dra- matic in form; that the personages appearing in them usually have rSles whose reference to the action of the drama proper is most clearly declared on the first and last occasion of their ap- pearance; and that between acts they function as chorus. It may be further noted that, whereas in Seneca the ghost in- cited to action and furnished reasons for the plot, in EngUsh the usage is much more varied. In the cycle-plays, angelsl were the supernatural agencies for this purpose. Later, the vice was the intriguer, his malice shaping and coloring what had been the rather imcertain function of the angel. Later still, the Senecan ghost and his ItaUan colleagues were imported i as extraneous inciters to drama. Finally, as has been noted, j " Cf. Gayley, Plays of Our Forefathers, p. 334. 214 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA this function of the ghost secured his admission among the per- sonages of the play and his absorption into the action. During the history of prologue and epilogue there is dis- cernible a change in the audiences addressed. In the earliest plays the dramatis personae were often the objects of recogni- tion. When the audience of the theatre was formally noticed, it became evident that the speaker recognized not only specta- tors in general, but those on the stage itself, and both social and intellectual grades among those in the remainder of the house. It is not vmusual to find in some of the early plays a formal prologue for the spectators and a second one opening the play and directed to the dramatis personae. When such du- pUcations occur in miracle plays, the prologue to the spectators is usually a later addition; their occurrence in later plays marks these as under the influence of an earHer tradition. The abundance of prologues and epilogues throughout the whole period of English secular drama is a noticeable feature." Opposed to the early material evidence of their popularity is the later outcry against them by the dramatists themselves. The inferences permitted by such facts are, perhaps, that lack of prologue and epilogue here and there in the period of the morahties is due chiefly to the operation of time and neglect upon the first and last leaves of paper books; and that the later omissions are more largely the dehberate act of the dramatist. AU data" lend themselves to the conclusion that prologue and epilogue were little less popular than the drama they accom- panied. Taken in connection with the limited vogue of the chorus, they attest the good sense of the playwright, who soon got rid of the chorus which was a clog upon his artistic freedom, but retained those forms through which he could make himself and his art more inteUigible and more attractive. At first, these non-organic parts may be considered as spoken by the author. "Baleus Prolocutor" and his tribe were later supplanted by various speakers, sometimes an actor in his own " In spite of the fact that the Cambridge History, VI, 186, speaks of them as an innovation! NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 215 person, sometimes one of the dramatis personae, rarely one of the "women" in the cast; occasionally by a personage totally un- connected with the play, but popular and sure of a welcome; and often by a speaker unidentified and merely a mechanical representative of the dramatist, a mouthpiece for his ideas. Prologues and epilogues, being essentially intermediaries be- tween author and audience rather than between drama and audience, are not only more personal than any other extranei- ties of drama, but respecters of persons to the extent that dif- ferent prologues and epilogues were written for a play repre- sented under different conditions. Some plays were staged at court, some in private houses, some in public theatres. Plays destined for presentation at more than one of these places had in general separate prologues and epilogues for the court. It became customary toward the beginning of the sev- enteenth century to furnish new prologues and epilogues when plays were revived. Henslowe has recorded'' the payment of five shillings to Henry Chettle in 1602 for a prologue and epi- logue for the court; and the same amount to Middleton for the same additions to the "playe of Bacon for the corte." In 1601, Dekker got ten shillings from Henslowe instead of the usual five "for a prologe and a epiloge, for the playe of Pones- ciones piUet." These entries not only show that revived plays were furbished by means of new extraneities, but give us leave to infer that prologues and epilogues were written by others than the authors of the plays. Thomas Heywood, Shirley, and Glapthome have pubUshed numbers of separate prologues and epilogues, intended not only for other men's plays, but doubtless for shifts for their own, to give a new appearance to an old play. The prologues to collections of dramas are also, if in a slightly different sense, separate. The earliest prologues of this sort, the Banns, were cried several days before the dramas were acted. Such prologues seem also to have gone over to popular amusements — if the influence is not indeed in the re- verse direction — as may be seen from a pseudo-interlude or " Cf. Corner's HensUnve, 228-229. 216 STUBIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA "banes" dating about 1503, and intended, it is supposed, for a May game.*' In view of the general custom in Elizabeth's reign of disre- garding the shifting bounds of literary meum and tuum, it is hard to say that there is such a thing as a borrowed prologue. The earliest instance that may be cited is not a formal prologue; but it has been pointed out^" that the introductory speech by the friar in John Heywood's The Pardoner and the Frere is directly taken from Chaucer's Pardoner. In later prologues un- der the influence of Seneca and Terence, similar appropriations are to be noted, though on a less extensive scale.^' There are data for the supposition that prologues were also borrowed in the sense that the same prologue served two men for two dif- ferent plays. Epilogues are in similar case. The prologue to Beaumont and Fletcher's Noble Gentleman was published later with Thierry and Theodoret. One and the same epilogue ap- pears with both The Noble Gentleman and The Woman Hater. Such borrowings are, of course, "among friends." But there are more conspicuous cases. The Blackfriars prologue to Lyly's Campaspe was printed as belonging to The Knight of the Burning Pestle; He3rwood's Royal King and Loyal Subject has an epilogue which appeared also in Henry Shirley's Martyred Soldier. These instances are characteristic of a large class of extraneities and show the perfunctoriness of prologues and epilogues, if not the irresponsibility of pubhshers or authors or both. In the Stuart dramas, ideas in use in one prologue are found also in others, constituting practically "prologue stock," if not directly borrowed by one from another. Actual stock prologues are also on record.^^ Indeed, so limited is the range of ideas expressed in prologues and epilogues that these might aU be regarded as stock forms were it not for the characteristic styles that distinguish them. The effort to say the old idea in a new way was often highly successful. " Chambers, II, 454. '" Karl Young, in Modern Philohgy, II, 197. ^' Cf. Cunliffe, Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy; Boas' ed. of Kyd. " Fleay, Biographical Chronicle of English Drama, I, 300. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 217 Prologues were often rewritten or revised either to keep pace with a revised drama, or to suit a changed mode of expression. Neither they nor the epilogues invariably accompanied the first appearance of a play; they were added after any perform- ance that gave occasion for such extraneities. Those that were added did not always survive, for they were in many cases "retrenched by the printer, because they could not be brought within the compass of the page, and because he was unwilling to add another leaf."^* On the other hand, we know from the introduction to the reprint of the first folio of Shakespeare that we owe the epilogue to 2 Henry IV and the prologue to Troilus and Cressida to the unwillingness of the printers of the folio to leave a blank page as witness of printers' haste and miscalcu- lation.*^ Comparison of quartos with each other and with folios reveals the fact that extraneous parts were sometimes supplied after a first edition; that they were sometimes fur- nished at first and subsequently removed; and that sometimes they remained, although revised and altered. These phenom- ena are coimected sometimes with the history of the play in its external circumstances; sometimes with the writer's mood or with his judgment, or with other causes not readUy determined. Translations of classical plays were often suppHed with original English prologues and epilogues, which contained somewhat different matter from other prologues and epilogues, being char- acteristically much more restricted to questions connected with the development of the English language and with the stage history of the play^^ — themes which were proportionately much rarer in prologues to native plays. Owing to the great number of prologues and epilogues as material for the discussion of their function, it is impossible to comment upon each one. Only those have been noted which may be grouped with reference to particular periods, as the Reformation, or which are otherwise limited and exceptional, " Collier, Annals, II, 444. " Cf. p. xxviii and p. xsvii. « Collier, Annals, II, 364. 218 STUDIES m ENGLISH DRAMA as prose prologues and epilogues. By far the greater number of prologues and epilogues, as well as the earliest ones, are in verse. The first extant prose prologue is prefixed to Gascoigne's Supposes, the earUest extant prose drama (1566). The version of The Marriage of Wit and Science that was Ucensed in 1569 has a verse prologue in its extant form, which in the original manu- script was written as prose.^* This is the first extant example of a difference in rhythmical form between extraneities and drama. Later, Gascoigne's Glass of Government shows a like combination in reversed order, the extraneities being in verse and the drama in prose — a combination much more frequently met a little later. In Promos and Cassandra the "preface" is in prose. These particular extraneities seem to be the only instances of the use of prose before Lyly. Lyly's dramas show both forms, with prose largely exceeding verse. About this time it became fashionable to put comic characters and comedy into prose. Although the subsequent employment of prose in epilogues and prologues is not whoUy according to this conven- tion, it is sufficiently so to warrant the inference that some such principle governed its use. Although prose extraneities are found as late as Brome's Court Beggar, they appear then by exception. At that date, drama had lost much of its earUer variety and was largely confined to tragi-comedy. These non-organic elements of drama after Jonson are for the most part in heroic couplets, an artificial style harmonizing with the artificial sentiments expressed. Among extraneities it is not inevitable that prose in the one should mean prose in the other. Antonio and Mellida has a verse prologue and a prose epilogue. The verse prologue is conventional, an apology for the inadequacies of the piece, with an entreaty for the favor of the audience and some very mechanical flattery of their rarity and wit. The epilogue con- tains a phrase conspicuous in a few dramas at this time and bear- ing reference to the War of the Theatres. The epilogue speaker says that he remains "an armed epilogue." The same phrase 2« Hazlitt's Dodsley, vol. II, footnote to explain this prologue. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 219 recurs in the prologues to Troilus and Cressida and the Poet- aster. In 1629, Randolph revived it in the prologue to Aristip- pus, but in purely literary reference, as his prologue came "armed with arts." In 1639 the phrase was used in the pro- logues to Glapthorne's Wit in a Constable and Burnell's Land- gartka — doubtless as mere literary allusion. The Knight of the Burning Pestle has a prose prologue evidently meant for read- ers, for it is in the same style and tone as the address To the Readers of this Comedy which immediately precedes it, and itself precedes the dramatic induction which contains the conven- tional prologue. Its exaggerated style is part of the general satiric purpose of the play. In the verse prologue which opens the mixed induction there are echoes of the mannerisms of earlier dramatists, as if in ridicule of their "high astounding terms." In the epilogue, spoken by the citizen's wife, there is still satire, but of the kind seen in Jane Austen's characteriza- tion of Miss Bates, or in any other skillful delineation of the comic attributes of an individual, and intended rather for amusement than for castigation. In these extraneities the ends of ridicule have determined the use of the same forms as those inspiring the satire. In the prose epilogue there is only the normal use of prose for pedestrian dialogue. In Nobody and Somebody, an earher play obviously influenced by the tradi- tions of the morality, the prologue, elaborating one of the kinds of "conceits" popular at the time and suggestive of Provencal riddles and other comphcated forms of mediaeval verse, is spoken by a mere prologue speaker and is in rime. But the epilogue, by the comic personage. Nobody, is in prose and con- sists of a series of such pirns as are most suggestive of the fools of the dramas.^' Likewise, in The Two Merry Women of Abing- don, the prose extraneity is of the kind uttered by fools, full of "patter," famiUar, vivid, imdignified. It is given to the prologue. The epilogue, not distinct from the drama proper, is spoken by one of the personages of the play and is in the metre 2' There is here also a suggestion of the traditions of the mime in the "patter" so clearly discernible. 220 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA of the play, although theoretically there is no other reason for its being in verse. In Lady Alimony, the satiric-ironical pur- pose of the author, combined with the detailed attacks he makes — all comic — and the coarse fibre of the whole piece, make prose the only fit medium of expression. Yet the force of con- vention appears in the fact that a verse prologue follows the prose induction and ushers in the prose play. In Cynthia's Revels, a much earlier drama, the purpose is again satirical. The induction, representing a squabble among three boys for the cloak in which to speak the prologue, is in prose; but the prologue speech is in the conventional verse form. The epi- logue to the play is also in verse, spoken evidently by a member of the cast who had had a prose part in the play, for on his re- appearance he says he has become a rimer since he went in and announces himself as appointed by the author to make Some short and ceremonious epilogue. Its character is humorous — ^not in Jonson's sense of the word — whimsical, and the reverse of ceremonious, concluding with Jonson's extremest fling of arrogant contemptuousness in the famous line, By God 'tis good, and if you like't you may. It is not necessary to give further instances of the distinction between the use of verse and that of prose in the extraneous parts of drama. Perhaps the comparative infrequency of prose forms needs less emphasis than the fact that they exist at all. Yet they are found from 1566 until 1640 and are employed generally in accordance with the ordinary notions of the period concerning the functions of prose. The verse extraneities, on the other hand, followed more arbitrary convention and had a much longer vogue. It seems to have been only during the heyday of Elizabethan comic character that prose extraneities were in fashion. Although, as already noted, these non-organic elements of NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 221 drama take small account of the important movements of the times, perhaps because these movements were not "vocal and picturesque,"^* yet there is a small group of Reformation dramas that needs consideration. Nimibering apparently hardly more than a dozen, there is but one for the Catholic side of the con- troversy. Only about one-fourth of these dramas reveal their partisanship in the extraneous portions. Bale inaugurated the series, setting an example of acrimoniousness which no one else rivalled. New Custom, RespMica, and Jacob and Esau seem the only dramas besides Bale's to affect controversial extranei-y <^. ties. The others express their views through the less personal medium of the dramatic action. Some of Bale's prologues are much more violently anti-papist than his plays.^' They may be regarded as the essential parts of his dramas, both when he offers . . . .no trifling sport, But the things that shall your inward stomach cheer, and when he exhorts men to follow Christ, and not Francis, Benedict nor Bruno, Albert, nor Dominic, for they new rulers invent. In New Custom, an Edward the Fourth play,** the prologue, while not explicitly naming papists, is wholly given up to a censure of them. The formal epilogue to this play, pra3dng for the queen, could not have been addressed to anyone but Eliza- beth, and must therefore have been added when the play was revived about 1563.'^ The epilogical material seems suflSciently Protestant, Assurance and Converted Perverted Doctrine being prominent among the concluding speakers in praise of true religion. The prologue to Respublica is more specific. After declaring that Time trieth all, and God restores such kingdoms when he pleases, 2' Cambridge History, V, 416. " Especially in Baptystes, where the Bible story restrains Bale in the drama proper. '"Schellmg, Elizabethan Drama, II, 395. [Correct text to Edward VI.— Ed.] "Ibid., I, 60. 222 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA the speaker rejoices that God has sent Mary to reform abuses. Mary, he continues, .... is our most wise and most worthy Nemesis, who has come to overtiurn Insolence, Flattery, Oppression, and Avarice, powers which under Edward have had the "Rewle in their possession." The epilogue here is informal, with a suggestion, in its anthem-like quaUty, of earUer musical con- clusions. It contains a prayer for the long reign of Queen Mary to "maintain the Commonwealth." Protestant tendencies ap- pear in both prologue and epilogue to Jacob and Esau. Creize- nach points out"* the distinct example in the two brothers, of the Protestant doctrine of predestination, which is enunci- ated in the prologue: But before Jacob and Esau yet bom were, Jacob was chosen and Esau reprobate, and repeated in the epilogue: Yet not all flesh did he then predestinate, But only the adopted children of promise. If it seems to be one of the superfluities of prologues and epi- logues that they so often give us the plot in duplicate, it must be remembered that in those instances where they have sur- vived the play, this defect acquires merit in giving us leave im- aginatively to reconstruct the piece. This is true of A Play to the Country People, whose prologue is the only proof of the existence of the drama; of Pride of Life, whose long prologue serves to show in detail what parts of the play have perished, and to suggest how the writer must have developed it. The Digby Killing of the Children also furnishes data otherwise in- accessible, since its prologue names "last year's play," not ex- tant, and its epilogue announces "next year's play," also lost. There is, as has been suggested, a large class of prologues " Vol. II, p. SS9. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 223 and epilogues intended to justify the stage against Puritan ene- mies. It is not impossible that prologues and epilogues dis- claiming personal satire were partly directed toward the same end. This kind of apology appeared very early,^ and con- tinued very late. The Conflict of Conscience is interesting in this connection. It is more often noted for its Reformation bias than for its connection with other topics of interest; one can not blame critics for paying more attention to Satan's elab- orate comparison between himself and the Pope in the first act, than to the author's simple statement in the prologue that comedy does not permit a writer to touch particularly the vices of one private man. The explicit definition of comedy implies a denial of personal satire. A reasoned explanation, confined to one prologue, could not, however, convince the theatre-going public as a whole, so that the denial of a special butt for moral applications is repeated again and again. There is probably no year when drama was written that was without at least one instance of such a denial. This state of things might be ex- pected not only from the steadily didactic intention of EngUsh drama and from the incessant need to defend the play from possible foes; but also because there was so much actual lam- poon and libel, and because the denial of it paid both those who in this way satisfied conscience and those who thereby in- creased their gate-money. To deny personal satire, as Jonson did, in plays abounding with it, was a very real way to stimu- late curiosity. In addition to what has been said of the use of prose and verse in prologues and epilogues, verse measures need considera- tion. In the plays immediately following the biblical morali- ties, prologues and dramas are alike written in tumbhng meas- ure. The prologue to Pride of Life contains such obvious four- stressed lines as these: Sot pis oure game schal gin & ende throgh ihesus crist is swete grace. "Ludus Coventriae. 224 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA In The Castle of Perseverance the tumbling metre is still clearly evident: ]7us endyth oure gamys! To saue ^ou fro synnynge, Evyr at J>e begynnynge Thynke on ^oure last endyngel Such passages have a melodic character which renders analysis of the metre easy. In Mankind, the low status of the makers and the common character of the audience for which it was written" may suflSciently explain the unmusical quality of its tumbling lines: O, ye Soverens that sytt, and ye brothem that stonde ryghte uppe, Pryke not your felycytes on thynges transytoryte. Yet it must be admitted that dozens of later moralities have no better tumbUng verses than these. Apparently there is. noth- ing but tumbling measure for drama from the time of the cycle- plays until about 1550. Tom TylSr, whose date is perhaps less certain than that of some of its contemporaries, shows an iambic line of five accents, rimed in couplets, but wholly unlike the heroic couplet of a later generation. At practically the same time, the septenarius appears in extraneous parts of drama and gradually becomes the rival of the tumbling line. An early instance of its use occurs in the prologue to John Phillips's Patient Griselda, licensed 1565-6. Later, it alternates with the hne of six accents. The old measures do not die out when the new come into use, for the existence in the nineteenth century of both tumbling measure and rimed iambics sufficiently proves the fact. But the new measures are the fashion for a longer or shorter period after their introduction, and in some cases, as of the heroic couplet in the Stuart period, drive other metres to the wall. A bird's-eye view of the metrical panorama would show tumbling rime, poulter's measure, blank verse, prose, heroic couplet — the last named characterizing by far the greatest " See Pollard's introduction to the reprint of this play in the Early English Text Society's Publications. NON-OKGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 225 number of extant prologues and epilogues — as tlie successively popular rhjrthms for extraneous parts of drama. Althoijgh the logical relationship of the non-organic extranei- ties and the play was in general closer before 1642 than after the Restoration, the frequent, conspicuous perfimctoriness of the prologue in Fletcher and his contemporaries, together with complaints of its uselessness by many playwrights during that time, prov» sufficiently, pterhaps, that throughout the Stuart period it was in transition from its early fimction, that of furn- ishing valuable information upon the drama, to its later office of furnishing literary essays upon general themes. It is during this transition period that prologues and epilogues have great- est liken^s to each other. The epilogue has, little by little, learned to ask a plaudite imder many forms more elaborate and varied than those of its Uteral beginnings, and has apparently enlarged its narrow sphere by an incredible number of devices to avoid monotony in the reiteration of inevitably trite ideas. The prologue has ceased to be laboriously didactic and has learned to have a care how it says its say. Both forms have become polished, though with the change they seem often to have lost all excuse for being, and to have earned the contempt of the dramatists who despised them even while employing them. Although epilogues and prologues illustrate all kinds of utterance, from mere gracefxd nothingness to elaborate liter- ary criticism, a wearisome proportion of them is mere verbi- age — a conventional form destitute of style. In summarizing, it may be said that the history of prologue and epilogue prior to 1642 shows a steadily increasing use of the forms. The prologue is the earlier used, and is at first es- sential to the drama. Although not hterary, it is a valuable contributor to the history of drama and of literary criticism. Later, it is less expository and didactic; acquires Uterary quality and distinct form; becomes perfunctory, but, in compensation, is skilful in expression, graceful, witty, or brilliant. Its rhyth- mic form is generally that of verse, save occasionally where comic emphasis is sought through the use of prose. The verse 226 STUDIES m English drama changes as English metrical vogue shifts from tmnbling metre and early clumsy attempts at blank verse and other kinds of metre to the later and more generally used heroic couplet. The approach to unity of conception and of treatment keeps pace with the metrical development, so that in the Stuart period the heroic couplet is the verse form in which a complete Uterary unity is presented. Much the same statements must be made for the epilogue, though perhaps Jonson's influence upon it is stronger than his influence on the prologue. He is said'^ al- most to have invented the tradition of its regular use. Before his day the use of both forms was irregular, and even afterward, at least as far as we have data for judging, English dramatists seem not to feel these extraneities as obhgatory. Beaumont and Fletcher used them sparingly." We are told in the post- script to the first folio that "some Prologues and Epilogues (here inserted) were not written by the Authours of this volume, but made by others on the Revivall of severall Playes;" and we have not only Beaumont's own statement in the prologue to The Woman Hater that verse prologues are superannuated, but also explicit reiteration in many of the prologues supplied for revivals of these plays. The fact that both these extra- neous parts usually find mention under the one term "pro- logue," may be regarded as confirmatory of the greater impor- tance of this form. ''Article "Epilogue," Encyclopedia Brita/nnica, 11th ed., where it is noted that the epilogue as a distinct literary species is confined to English drama. '' See Glover and Waller's edition of Beaumont and Fletcher. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 227 V. Contribution of These Non-Organic Elements to the History of the Stage Allusions to Characteristics and Customs of Theatres. — Costume of the Prologue. — Prices of Admission. — ^The Spectators. — Performances outside of London. — ^Women and Children in the Audiences. — Stage Fittings. — Public and Private Theatres.. — The Companies. — ^The Dramatist. — ^Details of Play-History. — ^The War of the Theatres. — Critical Questions Dis- cussed. — Censure of Contemporary Drama. — Comic Realism Early Recog- nized. — Uses of the Terms Tragi-Comedy and Comedy. — ^The Literary Patron. — Data concerning Actors, Playwrights, and Patrons. In Fleay's two books^ dealing wit& the Elizabethan theatre and drama, and in Malone's Prolegomena to his edition of the works of Shakespeare, much interesting and valuable information is offered respecting the customs of the theatre, the history of the various London playhouses, and the relation they sustained to municipal and higher authority. Very Uttle of this knowledge has been contributed by the non-organic extraneities of drama; more has been derived from the body of the drama proper; but naturally most has been found in statutes and in docu- mentary data of various sorts. Additional contributions ap- pear in contemporary poems, in satires, in sermons. Of course, stage directions are fruitful sources, and not less so the often violent and prejudiced comments of enemies to actors and the stage. Yet the little that dramatic extraneities contribute is at least thoroughly representative and typical. The theatres do not need naming in prologue and epilogue, to audiences sitting in them during the recital of these parts, so that allusion is all that can be expected. This is too frequent for enumeration. From many specific references it is evident that the Globe and Blackfriars were intimately connected. Plays written for one are unceremoniously assigned to the other^ and comparisons between the two are instituted by prologue and epilogue speak- ers.' It seems also that the plays at the Globe were in general 1 A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama and A Chronicle History of the London Stage. 2 Shirley's Doubtful Heir, etc. ' Doubtful Heir and Davenant's News from Plymouth. 228 STUDIES m English drama for a lower class of people than those offered at Blackfriars, for when Shirley's Doubtftd Heir was put on at the Globe, the pro- logue speaker explained that the author did not calculate this play For this meridian. He then characterized the Bankside and admitted that his ware was not preferred there: Here's no target-fighting Upon the stage, all work for cutlers barr'd; No bawdry nor no ballads; this goes hard. Oh, now, You squirrels that want nuts, what will you do? Pray do not crack the benches, etc. Mention is also made in this prologue of the much greater size of the rebuilt Globe. In Davenant's News from Plymouth the prologue indicates an inferior quality of performances at the Globe during vacation. The play was hcensed in August, a time when the playhouse rather promises "shows, dancing, and bucklerfights than art or wit." There is also a definite rela- tion between the court and Blackfriars, for Lyly's court plays are later staged in that private house, as well as one,* at least, of Massinger's at a stiU later period. Blackfriars and the Cock- pit presented a similar grade of plays and obviously were more conservative and set higher standards than some of the public theatres. Whitehall and Salisbury Court also produced the same plays.* The Curtain was complained of by Webster in the prefatory note to his White Devil, as being "open and black" and unfit for a winter theatre. His drama afterwards passed to the Phoenix.' In the same way, Brome's Antipodes, acted at Salisbury Court, was intended to be played at the Cockpit. This is not known from prologue or epilogue, but from the author's note at the end of the play. The incomplete- • Emperor of the East. ' E.g., Shakerley Marmion's Fine Companion, 1633. « Fleay, Biographical Chronicle, 11, 271. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 229 ness of much of the information furnished by extraneities has been typified by the circumstance just noted, namely, that the reader can infer only the fact of a relation between two theatres, little or nothing as to the nature or degree of that relation. The characteristics of the various theatres are alluded to more than once. In the induction to The Knight of the Burning Pestle it is said of Whitefriars, where this play was produced, "this seven years there hath been plays at this house; I have observed it; you have still girds at citizens." Mr. Fleay interprets this passage as alluding not only to the presenters of the Burning Pestle, who were Queen's Revels Children, but also to their pre- decessors, the King's Revels Boys, or still earlier, to Paul's Boys.' The smaller private houses are also indicated. The epilogue to Nabbes's Tottenham Court contrasts "my little house," or SaUsbury Court, with "others' fill'd Roomes," in favor of the smaller place. Many other references could be cited. Extraneities also indicate the length of the performance as from three-quarters of an hour if such brevity is necessary, and an hour and a half* "if the whole matter be played," to three hours.' Two horn's, however, is the time oftenest stated for the performance. In the induction to Bartholomew Fair, the scrivener tells the audience that they are to sit two and a half homrs or more to hear that play. The epilogue to Ram Alley regrets the fact that a mere two hours of performance should bring to an end the labor of many tedious hours of preparation. In the epilogue to Middleton's No Wit, No Help Like a Woman's, Weatherwise, that suitor to the widow who was always consulting his almanac, speaks the epilogue in character. He pretends to read from the almanac what the weather shall be "just between five and six this afternoon, "i" thus indicating the usual time for performances to end. The inference then is that plays began ' Fleay, English Stage, 203. ' From stage directions in Nature of the Fcnir Elements. ' Epilogue to Beaiunont and Fletcher's Loyal Subject; also Address to the Reader, Beaumont and Fletcher First Folio. ^° Cf. also The Magnetic Lady. 230 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA about three o'clock. That they were announced by soundings is evident from many stage directions and from some prologues. The impatient prologue of the boys' companies often finds it hard to wait for the third sounding, after which he may speak." The induction generally came after the second sounding." Sometimes the prologue is put thus early." There were in aU three soundings" before the play proper began. There were also, as is known from many stage directions and some extra- neities, musical intermedia of some sort.^^ The inductions and prologues spoken by members of the children's companies give some idea of the manner and cos- tume of a prologue speaker,^^ and other prologues and epi- logues allude to and corroborate these. The " lady prologue" of Shirley's Coronation defends herself in such a position on the groimd that a woman once in a Coronation may With pardon, speak the prologue, give as free A welcome to the Theatre as he That with a little Beard, a long black Cloak, With a starched face and supple leg hath spoke Before the Plays this twelvemonth, etc. Of all matters connected with the theatre as a playhouse, perhaps that of the price of admission is most adequately men- tioned in extraneities. Malone notes a penny admission. Al- though this price is not stated in the extraneities," the two-penny room is frequently alluded to. Sixpence,^* two shillings,^' and " E.g., in Cynthia's Revels, Lady Alimony, etc. " E.g., Every Man Out of His Humor, Cynthia's Revels. ^'E.g., Poetaster. ^* Address to the Reader in Satiromastix. '' Prologue to Nabbes's Hannibal and Scipio. "£.g., induction to Cynthia's Revels. " Cf. Tucca in Satiromastix, "A gentleman or an honest Cittizen shall not sit in your pennie-bench Theatres," etc. ; also, Wit without Money, Act IV near end: "Till you break in at Playes like Prentices for three a groat, and crack Nuts with the Scholars in peny Rooms again." "Induction to Cynthia's Revels, Magnetic Lady; epilogue to Jasper Mayile's City Match. " Blackfriars prologue to Queen of Arragon. NON-ORGAOTC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 231 even two and sixpence (as the cost of a box at the Hope) are mentioned. Jonson, in the verses written for the 1609 edition of The Faithful Shepherdess, mentions the charge of sixpence at private theatres. The induction to The Malcontent permits any man with wit to censure the play, provided "he sit in the twelve- penny roome."^" In a very early play whose prologue exists informally in the opening speech of one of the dramatis personae, the speaker addresses the audience, O, ye soverens that sytt, and ye brothern that stonde ryghte uppe, etc., showing that the better classes had seats, while the "ground- lings" stood. These clearly marked distinctions became modi- fied in time until those denominated "brothern" in contrast to their "soverens" equally claimed and secured seats. In the prologue to Shirley's Example, the author complains that any base fellow regarded in the parish as not Thought fit to be o' the jury, has a place Here, on the bench, for sixpence; and dares sit And boast himself conunissioner of wit. Not all spectators had seats, however, at any time. Jonson mentions "the imderstanding gentlemen o' the ground,"''* con- demning "the scale o' the grounded judgments here," whence it is clear that the "yard" or floor of the playhouse offered standing room only. Then, as already noted, there were rooms ranging in price from two-pence to half a crown, and private rooms with price not stated. Doubtless these were analogous to present-day playhouse accommodations, which permit a spectator to control one seat in a box or the whole box, accord- ing to the usage of the particular theatre. One of Middleton's prologue speakers^^ addresses those of the audience who are above, and then those who are below, showing that the spec- tators were placed in tiers, as to-day. Moreover, as many 2° Cf. prologue to Henry VIII, for one shilling entrance. " Induction to Bartholomew Pair. 22 No Wit, No Help Like a Woman's. 232 STUDIES m English drama writers infonn us, the stage itself was chosen by some specta- tors. From satirical, irate, and other comments, it is clear that such people came less to see than to be seen. They sat on stools^' and "drank tobacco;"" they scrupled not to crowd out the actors.'' ' Jonson's sharpest satiric thrust at them may be, perhaps, in The Staple of News, where he introduces four silly women upon the stage. They not only serve Jonson's subtler intention, but are the obvious means of illustrating stage cus- toms. The tiremen come in to trim the Ughts, whereupon these unsophisticated folk are terrified until reassured by the prologue speaker. It is left for the historian of the stage to interpret this illumination for us as a mark of the private house. The larger theatres were open to the weather and unlighted, whereas such private houses as Blackfriars, the Phoenix, and Salisbury Court were covered and lighted. Early in the history of the gallants upon the stage, they are ridiculed almost without ex- ception. Later, either they must have mended their ways, or the increasing trouble of the dramatist must have led him to concihate them, for Coka,yne addresses them with great ur- banity in more than one prologue.''* These conspicuous auditors and many less sensational spec- tators carried "table-books" to the play, in which they wrote down matter for dinner wit or other social profit as the play suggested quotation or comment, approval or objection. In- ductions and prologues make frequent mention of this custom.^^ Shirley, in his critical essay introductory to the first folio of Beaumont and Fletcher, declares that it is impossible to esti- mate "how many passable discoursing dining wits stand yet in good credit upon the bare stock of two or three of these single scenes." Evidently, though not specifically mentioned, these books were the means enabling men of fashion to appear bril- ® Prologue to Shirley's Example; induction to Cynthia's Revels. 2* Shirley's Example. ^ Prologue to The Devil is an Ass. ^ Prologue to Trapolin Supposed a Prince an,d to The Obstinate Lady. " Among the number, induction to The Malcontent, prologue to Hannibal and Scipio, prologue to The Woman Hater, first prologue to The Custom of the Country. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 233 liant in conversation. Beaumont, in the prologue to The Woman Hater, advertising the superior excellence of his play, warns those "lurking in corners with table-books" that the play has nothing ignoble in it. The prologue to The Ghosts of Hannibal and Scipio recognizes one in plush, That from the Poets labours in the pit Informs himself for th' exercise of wit At Tavemes, and instructs him that he is not to "gather notes." The first prologue to The Custom of the Country declares the play so far from offensive that we dare look On any man that brings his table-book, To write down, what again he may repeat At some great table to deserve his meat. These playgoers not only wrote their opinion in table-books, but expressed it most unmistakably during the play and after. The prime function of the epilogue, to beg approval, and the expUcit statement in many prologues of the power of the audi- ence to damn a play, imply this fact. Many dedications and prologues bear witness that audiences used their prerogative. Jonson admitted that the pubUc disliked Sejanus^^ and Cati- line,^^ and other authors^" have made similar acknowledgments, less willingly, perhaps, because less contemptuously. Among these plays "condemned," say the authors, "by the vulgar," are The Magnetic Lady, Shirley's Ball, and Ford's Love's Sacrifice. Here and there in a prologue, a poet will vaguely suggest the tmpopularity of one of his pieces, leaving it doubtful whether the statement is mere modesty or actual fact. He will also try to secure a favorable verdict, at least until after his benefit night. This came generally with the second or third perform- " Cf. dedication. 2' Cf. Address to the Reader. '» Address to the Reader in The Dumb Knigfit; prologue to A Fine Com- panion. 234 STUDIES m English drama ance,'i and was sometimes ingeniously advertised. One epi- logue speaker tells the audience that even if they dislike the play, they must, for the sake of the author and the actors, hide their disappointment and urge all their friends to come the second night, so that the joke will not be wholly on the first night's audience.'^ Although the London companies often played in the prov- inces, especially in plague times, almost none of the non- organic forms under discussion indicate audiences not in Lon- don. Shirley, of course, wrote prologues and epilogues for Irish performances of his own and others' plays, but they are in addition to the prologues that belong with those plays. There seem to be extant but two extraneities that indicate a play offered to provincial audiences. In the epilogue to the original play of Timon, the speaker asks a plaudite: Let loving hands, loude sounding to the ayre, Cause Timon to the citty to repaire, suggesting possibly that the play was tried first in the provin- cial towns, as so often in the case of present-day plays. The other is London Chanticleers, evidently taken from London to the provinces. The prologue speaker says. You're welcome then to London, which our show. Since you mayn't go to that, has brought to you. Spectators were supposedly men only. Women, if they at- tended, wore masks.*' Almost no prologues and epilogues ac- knowledge the presence of women,'* although this custom has exceptions in late plays, and is at least once'^ noticeably aban- " For second day, cf. prologue to The Sisters, The City Match. For sec- ond or third day, cf. prologue to The Sophy. For third day, cf. prologue to // This he not a Good Play the Devil is in It. '* The Sophy, both prologue and epilogue. " Prologue to Marston's Fawn. " Prologue to Appius and Virginia (c. 1563) recognizes women in the audience. " Prologue to Lady Alimony, where the title and matter of the play explain the address of the prologue. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 235 doned in a prologue addressed wholly to the ladies. Citizens' wives went to the theatre freely, if we may judge by that one of them who figures so prominently in The Knight of the Burmng Pestle; and their daughters, at any rate toward the end of the period, must have attended, for Glapthorne writes a prologue addressed to citizens in which he says of them: 'Tis your care To keep your Shops, 'lesse when to take the Ayr You walke abroad, as you have done today. To bring your Wives and Daughters to a Play." It is well known that women of better birth did not attend pubhc theatres. It is equally well known that the players went to the court and to the great houses. From prologues to such performances we know that women were in the audience. Addresses to Queen Elizabeth most readily come to mind in regard to early dramas, and in later ones, to Henrietta Maria. Children are mentioned early as among the audience at a play," and although their prominence on this one occasion is due to the perorator's desire to emphasize his moral, apparently no motive less tiresome would have revealed their presence, for they are not again mentioned, it would seem. It is also noted in a late prologue'* that the Stuart playgoer now and then went without his dinner in order to secure a good seat at the perform- ance. The nature of the stage, its arrangement and scenery, is a moot point with the leading critics. Here again, stage direc- tions afford more information than dramatic extraneities; and the dialogue of the main action is more allusive than the speeches of prologue and epilogue. Some stages were hung with arras;'' others were diversely fitted. The induction to Lady Alimony contains this comment upon the piece: "Never was any stage " Prologue to a revived Vacation Play. " Epilogue to The Disobedient Child. " To Davenant's Unfortunate Lovers. " Induction to Bartholomew Fair; inductions to The New Inn and to Cynthia's Revels. 236 STtTDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA since the first erection of our ancient Roman amphitheatres, with suitable properties more accurately furnished," etc. Al- though this non-committal term "property" can not be held to indicate scenery as we understand it to-day, it at least refutes the notion of anything like a bare stage, and may connote much stage decoration. Moreover, there were curtains, for mention is made of them all the way from the epilogue to Tancred and Gismunda, where they are first named, to Tat- ham's prologue (1640) upon the removing of the late Fortune Players to the Bull. In the last case, their silken glory is contrasted with the humbler woollen of earlier times. The induction to Cynthia's Revels also mentions silk ourtains. Whether the curtains were repaired as the arras was, we are not told; but the "faces in the hangings"*" were customarily renovated, for Jonson makes one of his induction speakers say, "'SUd, the boy takes me for a piece of perspective, I hold my life, or some silk curtain, come to hang the stage here! Sir crack, I am none of your fresh pictures, that use to beautify the decayed dead arras in a public theatre." Here it is evi- dent that the "piece of perspective" means something in the nature of scenery in the modern sense. In one of Heywood's prologues*' it is said that "Cupid descended in a cloud" upon the stage. Probably it may be concluded that the Elizabethan stage-furnishing was proportionally as far behind the modern stage-furnishing as that of the Elizabethan house was behind that of the modern house. Since the difference here is in degree, not in kind, it would probably be unwise to contend for a denuded stage. Respecting the merits of the various stages in the various playhouses, the comments in extraneities are few and not al- ways clear, since the construction of the stage is not yet fully determined. For instance, in the prologue to A Warning for Fair Women, the theatre is called a round and fair circuit; in choruses of Henry the Fifth it is condemned as inadequate, and *" Cf. dedication to The New Inn and induction to Cynthia's Revels. " The 1633 prologue to Love's Mistress. Perhaps this scenic effect is due to the masque-like character of this play. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 237 described as "this wooden O." Again the theatre is termed "vast"*^ by a prologue speaker. Presumably the larger house was a public theatre and the smaller one a private stage.'*' where plays were usually presented by candle-Hght.^ Hence the tiremen coming in to trim the Ughts would indicate one of the private houses. These were Blackfriars, Cockpit, White- friars, Sahsbury Court.^^ From a comparison of the inductions of Marston, Jonson, and other dramatists, with title pages an- nouncing places of representation, it is easy to infer that the boys' companies occupied these private houses. In many in- ductions the personages are "children," and act and speak as such, so that the fact is doubly evident. Not until after 1616 did men's companies have private theatres.** The presentation of plays by boys' companies long antedated the acting of them in private theatres. The Play of the Old Testament, we are told,*' was presented by choristers of St. Paul's on Christmas eve, 1378, almost two hundred years before we hear of Paul's Boys having their own playhouse. At the beginning of the reign of Mary Tudor, the Roman CathoKc drama Respublica was presented by one of the boys' companies, for the prologue contains the words: "We children to you old folk may join together to thank God," etc. These boys are not mentioned in all the prologues that they spoke, but are suflSciently kept in view from Mary's accession until perhaps the middle of the reign of James.*' Juvenile professional actors not only held the stage, but were serious rivals of the adult companies. It will be recalled that Hamlet's players complained of the little "eyases" of an earHer decade. In the third intermean of Jonson 's Staple of News another conspicuous objection may be found. Lesser notes occur here and there. In 1613, a company of London prentices acted without permission a satirical play*' *2 Prologue to The Roaring Girl. " Malone's Prolegomena, III, 61. « Fleay, English Stage, 226. " From Malone and Fleay. <• Fleay, English Stage, 253. " Creizenach, 1, 161. ** Note to the epilogue of Marston's Sophotiisba. *» The Hog Hath Lost His Pearl. 238 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA ridiculing the Lord Mayor and were imprisoned for it. Other non-professional companies acted, in 1613, The Hector of Ger- many and, as we see from an epilogue of 1640, The Queen of Arragon. Although these two companies may not have been boys, the prentices of 1613 presumably had the boys' compa- nies as their example. Fleay gives ground for this inference in his statement that the trouble over The Hog Hath Lost His Pearl "may have been the immediate cause of the dissolution of the Queen's Revels Children," whom we do not hear of after 1615, and who in that year appear to be the last boys' company in existence.^" Acting companies were much smaller before 1642 than later.^* Thomas Haywood tells the reader^^ that some of his plays re- quired two companies to act them. As it has been estimated^ that in these instances about thirty persons were on the stage at once, the size of the companies is easily inferred. Marston's induction to Antonio and Mellida adduces the smallness of the the company as the reason for an actor's having more than one part. The prologue to Holland's Leaguer contains, accord- ing to Fleay," an acknowledgment of the superiority of the King's Men and Queen's Men and an implication of the inferi- ority of the other companies. The title-page shows that this play was presented "at the private house in Sahsbury Court," and the prologue alludes to the Muses' colony- New planted in this soil. The allusion to superior and inferior companies of actors, which follows, is metaphorical and vague; but it is clear that the Salisbury Court company considered itself "sib" to the best: we partake The influence they boast of, which does make Our bayes to flourish, etc. '" Inferred as the result of a study of Fleay's data. " Malone, III, 179, says about twenty persons in Shakespeare's time. " Address to the Reader in The Iron Age, Pt. I. " Cf. Fleay, Biographical Chronicle, 1, 284. » Ibid., U, 66. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 239 The non-organic elements of drama are one great somxe of data for the biography of the writer, for the catalogue of his works, for the Ust of his friends and patrons. The address to Middleton's Roaring GirP^ is said to be our only source of knowledge of Middleton between 1608 and 1611; the significant facts of Dekker's life are confided to similar keepers.** From such appendages to drama we learn of the author's literary plans," often of works completed wholly or in part.** We know in many cases what the dramatist considered his best play,*' and what he thought of other plays*" and other men.'^ Of the play itself, the extraneous parts tell much that would not be elsewhere recorded: namely, the time of presentation, as in the long vacation, at Christmas,*^ at New Year, on Sun- day; the purpose, whether for a marriage or some other impor- tant event. Prologues often contain data for determining the chronology of more than one play. Epilogues sometimes create a divergence of opinion: the same prayer for the sovereign in- dicates to one critic*' that the printed play has been set up from the manuscript of the court performance, as " there is no addu- cible evidence of a play not acted at court ending with a prayer for the Queen;" to another,** that the customary prayer "in the pubHc theatres for the King and Queen sometimes made part of the epUogue." Alteration of titles is often recorded in a prologue,** as well as other changes in the play.** Sometimes, as in the case of Shirley, who suppUed each of his plays with a dedi- cation, the presence or absence of a particular extraneity may K Ibid., II, 95. " C/. Lectori, in Whore of Babylon. " Address in Sejanus. " Dedication of The Hector of Germany. " Dedication to Shjriey's Cardinal. '" Among innumerable references, see Taniburlaine, Hieronymo, Pericles, Gamester, Sejanus, Andronicus, etc. •1 Jonson of Shakespeare in the First Folio. «2 Cf. prologue to The Widow. " Fleay, English Stage, 57. «»2 Also among the Dramatis personae of The Return from Parndsfus. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 2S5 In the epilogue Perkins's modesty is again mentioned: All the ambition that his mind doth swell, Is but to hear from you, (by me), 'twas well. The biography of actors is, as we have seen, but scantily pre- sented in the extraneities of drama. In the nature of the case, a similar statement must be made for the playwrights. The dramatist contributes some autobiography; his pubUsher or printer often supplements such data. Whatever items come to the biographer from such sources come with a Uterary rather than an historical value, for they come colored and moulded by a feeling of one sort or another and are invariably presented as seen from one or another personal angle. Thus he were rash who should try to reconstruct a poet from the scattered bones in dedications and prologues. Autobiographical material is largely allusive, and as uninteUigible to the twentieth century reader as are many of the hits in the plays. We know from Massinger's dedications that he was continually "hard up,"!"' and also tha:t his gratitude for assistance was sharpened and increased by his need. He declares more than once^"^ that he actually owes his life to the timely aid of patrons. The ex- tremity of the statement, even allowing for exaggerated phras- ing, must be held to indicate his real necessity. In the dedi- cation of his Duke of Milan to Lady Katharine Stanhope, he says with persuasive frankness, "Let the example of others . . . plead my pardon, and the rather, since there is no other means left me (my misfortunes having cast me on this course) to pubhsh to the world .... that I am ever your ladyship's creature." The most extensive autobi- ography served up in a dedication is probably that in Daniel's verse dedication of Philotas to Prince Henry. The poet speaks as an old man to a young boy, and makes a bid for sympathy in calling himself "the remnant of another time;" one who has "•» Dedication to The Great Duke of Florence, to The Maid Of Honor, to The Duke of Milan. iM Dedication to The Unnatural Combat, to The Roman Actor. 256 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA outlived the date Of former grace, acceptance, aud delight, and who has been misunderstood by the new age; but yeeres hath done this wrong, To make me write too much and live too long. Not all autobiography is of this sort, however. Occasionally in a prologue a dramatist will make fun of himself, and in so doing pass incidental criticism upon the form of drama his prologue serves to introduce. Of course, this is merely the form of autobiography assumed for the purpose of lessening the sting of anticipated criticism. The biography of patrons would be very scanty if it were dependent upon the data in dedications. Nor does even the list of their names give the complete tale of their number. Certain names recur, whence it is to be inferred that' such men tried to fulfil the requirements of patronage.'"^ Other names appear in such connection that it is certain their owners did not welcome dedications. The dedication of Massinger's Bond- man seems to address a man unwilling to receive the dedica- tion. At other times, the writer alludes to the fact that some men will not accept these empty honors, but that the present patron has a finer grace. The fact that almost no name ap- pears twice in dedications of drama, taken in connection with what is known of the need of playwrights, is strong proof of a general imwillingness of men of prominence to patronize dram- atists. Whether the reasons for such unwillingness lay en- tirely in the pockets of these gentlemen, or somewhat also in possible disadvantages, oflficial and social, accruing to them should they seem openly and steadily interested in plays, is a question that these extraneities suggest but do not answer. "® E.g., Sir Thomas Walsingham, Thomas Hammon, Montgomery and Southampton, Kenelm Digby, George Lord Berkeley, Endimion Porter, the Earl of Newcastle. NON-ORGANIC DRAMATIC ELEMENTS BEFORE 1642 257 VI. General Conclusion and Summary In the attempt to summarize the results of this investigation into the function of these non-organic or extraneous parts of Enghsh drama before 1642, conclusions may be facilitated and made more intelligible if it is borne in mind that the extranei- ties considered show a broad cleavage between the chorus and the other forms, and that the reasons which have been given for this difference largely explain the facts in the history of the forms. The problem which this early drama was solving, both consciously and unconsciously, was a problem from which traditional and literary elements were noticeably absent, but in which unusual popular elements were abundant. The play-' goers wanted both reaUsm and romance, both poetry and ac- tion; they cared not a whit for classical example. From this standpoint, it is clear that the extraneities which did not de- pend upon this problem, which jdid not handicap drama in its march to the popular goal, but which in any way contributed to faciUtate that progress, through exposition of dramatic ques- tions, through persuasion, through the immediate relation of public and playwright, — that such extraneous parts would de- pend upon external circumstances and would increase or wane in popularity and importance in direct proportion to utiUty and fashion. These theoretical considerations are supported by the facts. The prologue, the most useful form for the ends of exposition and persuasion, has the longest and fullest history. It con- tributes much the largest part of the' information furnished by the extraneous parts of drama. Its form and function change little from times long anterior to the classical Renaissance up to the closing of the theatres in 1642. Its content varies to suit the writer and the occasion.. It would not be easy to mark periods of ebb, for its use is fairly constant. Although the dramatists themselves are from time to time contemptuous of its value, they retain its use. The epilogue as a determined form is later to appear, and, as has been shown, is less service- 258 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA able. It is more truly a dranutic convention than the prologue is, and hence is more often merely clever. Its primary func- tion of apology is never wholly outgrown, but ultimately subor- dinated, in appearance at least, to subtleties and felicities of expression, to salUes of wit, to artificiaUties of many sorts. Letters furnished with printed plays became more frequent and more calculating as economic changes intensified trade compe- tition among publishers and printers, and lessened the play- wright's chances to make ends meet. Their ultimate function was to beg, whatever their immediate aim. Printers advertised plays, and poets dedicated them, with the same end in view. The frequency of such documents increased steadily and, as the closing of the theatres did not mean that printed plays were prevented, the writing of new dedications for old plays went on into a later period. Numerous as are the scraps of information furnished in the extraneous parts of drama, they are habitually casual, and hence generally in need of supplement or interpretation or both. Yet they make, none the less, a not unworthy contribution to a knowledge of the Uterary life of the period. They bear upon drama and stage, rather than upon other forms' of activity, in a period when English literary life was characteristically dramatic. BIBLIOGRAPHY Tuke's The Adventures of Five Hours Coello's Los Emperlos de Sets Boras. — Two copies occur in the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid, the earlier in Comedias Nuevas Esco- gidas de las Meiores ingenios de Espana, Part VIII (1657), the second a sttelta published by Francisco de Leiedael (Seville; no date). Tuke's The Adventures of Five Hours. — Separate editions were printed at London in 1663, 1664, 1671, and 1704, and at the Hague in 1712. It was included in a collection of English Plays (London; 1711), in Dodsley's Select Collection of Old English Plays, vol. XII (1744), and in the later editions of Dodsley by Isaac Reed (1780), J. P. ColUer (1825), and W. C. Hazlitt (1874; vol. XV). It was republished by Scott in The Ancient British Drama (1810), vol. III. A German translation by L. Meyn, FUnf Stunden Abenteuer, a "Lustspiel nach einem altenglischen Muster des S. Tuke," was published at Kiel and Weimar (1866). The 1874 Do'dsley is' the most copveiiient text, but reprints the revised version of 1671, and not die historically more significant 1663 form. A critical edition is lacking. Hull's The Perplexities. — This was printed separately (1767) ; and also included in Vol. H of The English Drama, printed by R. Wilks (1818). Other source material for this study is to be found in the Scott- Saintsbury edition of Dryden (18 vols.; 1882-93); W. P. Ker's edition of The Essays of John Dryden (2 vols. ; 1900) ; Arber's English Garner, vol. HI (1880) ; Spingarn's edition of Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century, vol. II (1908); The Works of Sir William Davenant (1673); The Dramatic Works of Sir William D'Avenant, edited by J. Maid- ment and W. H. Logan (5 vols. ; 1872-74) ; John Evelyn's Diary, edited in 4 Volumes by H. B. Wheatley (1906), and including in vol. IV some correspondence of Mrs. Evelyn; the Diary of Samuel Pepys, edited in 10 volumes by H. B. Wheatley (1897-99); the Roscius AngUcanus of John Downes (1708), reprinted in facsimile by Joseph Wright (1886); Bishop Sprat's History of the Royal Society (1667); Anthony a Wood's Athenae Oxonimses (ed. 1721); the Earl of Clarendon's 259 260 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA History of the Rebellion (ed. 1849) ; and the biographical sources for Tuke, as listed in the Dictionary of National Biography, LVII, 300. Brief treatments of Tuke and The Adventures, generally mere per- functory repetitions of fact, are to be found in the following: Gerard Langbaine's Account of the English Dramatick Poets (1691), SOS; Anthony a Wood's Athenae Oxonienses (1691), II, 802; Laurence Eachard's Terence's Comedies Made English (1694), pp. xv-xvi of the edition of 1729; GUes Jacob's Poetical Register (1723), II, 261; D. E. Baker's Biographia Dramatica (1764), continued by Isaac Reed (1782), 1,454, and II, 4 (both in ed. of 1782) ; prefatory statements to the play in the editions of Dodsley's Old Plays of 1780, 1825, and 1874, and in Scott's The Ancient British Drama (1810); Genest's Some Account of the English Stage from the Restoration in 1660 to 1830 (1832), passim; Halliwell's Dictionary of Old Plays (1860), 4; and W. D. Adams's Dictionary of the Drama (1904), I, 19-20. Other references, including some independent criticism, are in Doran's Annals of the English Stage (1865), I, 134-5; R. W. Lowe's life of Thomas Betterton (1891), 32; Richard Garnett's Age of Dryden (1895), 4r5; Edmund Gosse's Seventeenth Century Studies (1897), 224; A. W. Ward's History of English Dramatic Literature to the Death of Queen Anne (1899), III, 305 (passage merely reprinted from ed. of 1875); C. H. Firth's article on Tuke in the Dictionary of National Biography, LVII, 300 (1899); C. G. Child's The Rise of the Heroic Play in Modern Language Notes, XIX (1904), 166-173; M. A. S. Hume's Spanish Influence on English Literature (1905), 291-2; and Sidney Lee's Shakespeare and the Modern Stage (1906), 99. In addition to the above mentioned works the principal authori- ties cited in the study are: Alberto de la Barrera's Catdlogo biblio- grdfico y biogrdflco del teatro antiguo Espanol (1860); Campbell's Lives of the Lord Chancellors of England (1845-1856); D. F. Can- field's Corneille and Racine in England (1904) ; Catalogue of the British Museum (1881-1900) ; L. N. Chase's The English Heroic Play (1903); W. J. Courthope's History of English Poetry (1895-1910); The Fur- nivall English Miscellany (1901) ; Edmund Gosse's Eighteenth Cen- tury Literature (1901); Edmund Gosse's Sir George Etherege, in The Cornhill Magazine, XLIII (1881), 286 Jf. (republished in his Seven- teenth Century Studies (1883), 259-98); C. H. Gray's Lodowick Car- liell (1905) ; P. Holzhausen's Drydens heroisches Drama, in Englische Studien, XIII (1889), 414-445; J. Fitzmaurice-Kelly's LUterature Espagnole (translation of Davray, 1904); T. R. Lounsbury's Shake- speare as a Dramatic Artist (1901); Edmond Malone's edition of The Critical and Miscellaneous Prose Works of Dryden (1800); W. H. Ficscott's History of the Reign of Philip II (ed. 1858); George Saints- BIBLIOGRAPHY 261 bury's John Dryden (1881) ; AdoU Schaffer's Geschichte des spanischen NationaUramas (1890) ; F. E. Schelling's Bm Jonson and the Classical School, in Publications of the Modern Langmge Association, XIII, (1898), 235-245; F. E. ScheUing's Elizabethan Drama, 1558-1642, (1908); P. Siegel's Aphra Behns Gedichteund Prosawerke, in Anglia, XXV, 86-128; J. E. Spingarn's Literary Criticism of the Renaissance (1899) ; Various articles in the Dictionary of National Biography, edited by Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee (1885-1912) ; George Ticknor's His- tory of Spanish Literature (ed. 1864); and J. W. Tupper's The Rela- tion of the Heroic Play to the Romances of Beaumont and Fletcher, in the Publications of the Modern Language Association, XX (1905), 584r-621. A few references of minor importance, cited with suf- ficient fullness in connection with the passages to which they are attached, may be here omitted. [The following important works dealing in whole or in part with the drama of the Restoration period have made their appearance since the date (1907) of the foregoing investigation: The Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. VIII (1912), caps. 1, 5, 6, 7; John Palmer's The Comedy of Manners (1913) ; and G. H. Nettleton's English Drama of the Restoration and Eighteenth Century (1914). In The Cambridge History, VIII, 18, 147, 148, 149, have been in- corporated, with acknowledgment, several facts concerning Dryden and Tuke derived from this thesis while it was yet in manuscript form.] Heywood's The Fair Maid of the West For an account of the various editions of the play see pages 62-64. Other primary sources are the Greenstreet papers as reprinted in the Transactions of the Shakespeare Society for 1885, and Arber's Tran- script of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London: 1554- 1640 (5 volumes; 1875-1894); The Yale ZJaJ/yiVewi, c. April 24, 1901. The various secondary sources referred to in the text include: Winstanley, Lives of the Most Famous English Poets (1687) ; Lang- baine. An Account of the English Dramatick Poets (1691) ; Baker and Reed, Biographia Dramatica (ed. 1812); Collier, A History of Eng- lish Dramatic Poetry to the Death of Shakespeare: and Annals of the Stage to the Restoration (1831); Genest, Some Account of the English Stage from the Restoration in 1660 to 1830 (1832) ; Collier's introduction to his edition of The Fair Maid of the West (1850) ; Fleay, A Biographi- cal Chronicle of the English Drama, 1559-1642 (1891); Hazlitt, Manual of Old English Plays (1892); Hazlitt, Bibliographical Col- lections and Notes 1474-1700. Third and Final Series. Second Supplement (1892) ; Jusserand, Histoire LittSraire du Peuple Anglais 262 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA (1896-1904); Courthope, A History of English Poetry (1895-1910); Ward, A History of English Dramatic Literature to the Death of Queen Anne (1875; 1899); ScheUing, The English Chronicle Play (1902); Schelling, Elizabethan Drama, 1558-1642 (1908). The Valiant Scot, '"by J. W." The Valiant Scot appears in a single edition published by John Harper for Thomas Waterson, London, 1637. The Wallace of Blind Harry the T linstrel, written c. 1460, and of which editions appeared in 1570, 1594, 1601, 1611, 1620, and 1630, was re-edited from the unique manuscript in posseission of the Advo- cates' Library in Edinbiurgh, by Dr. John Jamieson, Edinburgh, 1820. Quotations in the text are from the reprint of 1869 (Glasgow). A later edition of the poem appe^ars in the Publications of the Scottish Text Society, 1889. For other references see Korting's Grundriss, §166. [See also Dr. George Neilson's article On Blind Harry's Wallace in Essays and Studies by members of the English Associa- tion, Oxford, 1910.] The facts and traditions concerning Wallace and Bruce are well summarized by Dr. /Eneas Mackay in the Dictionary of National Biography. For John Waterson and Thomas Harper see entries in A Trans- cript of the Register of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554- 1640, as reprinteld by E. Arber, 5 vols., London, 1875-1894. ' The incidental references to Anthony a Wood, Fleay, Ward, et al., are indicated with sufficient clearness in the text, passim. Sir Ralph Freeman's Imperiale Three editions of Imperiale are recorded, the quarto of 1639, the duodecimo of 1640, and the quarto of 1655. The quarto of 1639 was entered in the Stationers' Register March 1, 1639 (ed. Arber, IV, 431). This edition is recorded by Hazlitt {Bibliographical Collec- tions and Notes, Second and Third Series; Handbook), by Fleay {Life and Works of Shakespeare, 347), by Greg {List of English Plays) , and by the Dictionary of National Biography {s.v. Sir Ralph Free- man). The duodecimo of 1640 is mentioned by J. O. HaUiwell {Diction- ary of Old Plays), by Hazlitt, and by Greg; the quarto of 1655 by 'Laia^w\^{An Account of the English Dramatick Poets), by Baker {Bi- ographia Dramutica) , by Hazlitt, by HaUiwell, by Greg, by Genest {His- tory oftheStage, X, 129), and by the Dictionary of National Biography. The edition of 1655 is, so far as the writer knows, the only one extant BIBLIOGRAPHY 263 in the United States. A copy of the 1639 edition can be found in the British Museum. Of the present existence of the edition of 1640 there appears no record whatever. Citations in the text are made from the edition of 1655. The original sources for the life of Sir Ralph Freeman are the Rolls Series, Domestic, Nichols' Progresses of James, the record of the Committee for Compounding, and the Diary of John Evelyn. The other infrequent references to Freeman and Imperiale are indi- cated with sufficient fullness in the footnotes. The Cenci Story The study is based upon a consideration of the following material: 1. d'Abrantes, D., Beatrice Cenci. — 2. Anglia, II, 1, 504, "Philip Massinger." — ^3. Anglia, III, 361, "Philip Massinger." — 4. Allan- tic Monthly, XXI, 176. — 5. Bencini, B., Cenci Romana. (Firenze, 1838). — 6. Bertolotti, Francesco Cenci e la sua Famiglia. (1877; 2nd ed. 1879). — 7. Bruzzone, P. L., // teslamento di B. Cenci. {La Do- menica Letteraria. Rome, 1884). — 8. Carbone, Giunio, Beatrice Cenci, Dramma. (Pistoia, 1853). — 9. Beatrice Cenci j Racconto Storico (1874). — 10. Coleridge, S. T., Lectures on Shakespeare. — 11. Colet, Louise, L'ltalie des Italiens, IV, 183. (Quotes from Italian Chronide an account of the last hours of Beatrice.) — 12. Collier, J. P., Henslowe's Diary.—13. Collier, J. P., History of English Dramatic Poetry. (1831). — 14. Custine, M. de, B. Cenci, tragidie en Cinqut Actes. (Paris, 1833).— 15. Dal Bono, C. T., Storia di B. Cenci e de' Suoi Tempi con Documenti Inediti. (Napoli, 1864). — 16. Dow- den, E., Life of P. B. Shelley. (London, 1886).— 17. Dumas, A., Crimes CMtbres.—lS. Fortnightly Review, XLVI (1886).— 19. Geb- hart, E., La Veriti sur une Famille Tragique. Les Cenci' {£tudes M&ridionales. Paris, 1877). — 20. Geschichte der Hinrichtung der B. Cenci and ihrer Familie unter Papst Clement VIII, in Rom. (Vienne, 1789).— 21. Grand Dictionnaire Universel du XIX. Siecle. (Paris, 1866). in.— 22. Grande Encyclopedic. (Paris). IX, 1093—23. Geffroy, A., La LSgende de la Cenci. {Revue des Deux Monies, 1880).— 24. Guerrazzi, F. D., B. Cenci, Storia del Secolo XVI. (Pisa, 1851; translated by Scott, C. A., London, 1858.)— 25. Hal- lam, Literature of Europe. — 26. Histoire Veritable de la Mort de Jacques et B. Cenci, etde Lucr&ce Petroni Cenci, leur belle-mire, exScutSs pour crime de parricide, samedi dernier 11 septembre 1599, sous le r&gne de nStre saint-phre, le pape CUment VIII Aldobrandini. (This MS. is translated by Stendhal in Chroniques et Nouvelles. 1855).— 27. Landor, W. S., Five Scenes. {Last Fruits of an Old Tree. Lon- 264 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DRAMA don, 1853. P. 387.)— 28. Langbaine, G., An Account of the English Dramatick Poets. (1691).— 29. Malartie, A. de., Relation de la Mart de Giacomo et B. Cinci et de Lucr'ece Petroni Leur Belle-mbre. (Paris, 1828).— 30. Massinger, P., The Unnatural Combat. (4to, 1639; 2 copies). — ^31. Massinger and Ford, ed. Coleridge, H. (1840). — 32. Massinger's PTorifei, ed. Cunningham, F. (1871).— 33. Massinger's Works, ed. Gifford, W. (1813) .—34. Massinger's Works, ed. Mason, W. (1779).— 35. Massinger's Works, ed. Symons, A. (1887).— 36. Muratori, L. A., Annali d'ltalia. (1821).— 37. Niccolini, G.B.,B. Cenci, Tragedia. (Opere. Firenze, 1844). — 38. Nouveau Larousse IllustrS Dictionnaire Universel Encyclopidique, II, 604. — 39. Per- rens, F. T., Le Proces des Cenci d'apres des Documens Nouveaux. (Reme des Deux Mondes. 1864). — 40. Sarrazin, G., Shelley: Les Cenci, in Pontes Modernes de I'Angleterre. (Paris, 1885). — 41. Shakespeare, ed. Malone (1821).— 12. Shelley, P. B., The Cenci (1819). — 43. Shelley, P. B., Les Cenci, Drame. Traduction de Tola Dorian (Paris, 1883) .^44. Stendhal (M. H. Beyle) , Les Cenci (1855) .— 45. Stephen, L., ffoM;-i in a Library. (3rd Series, 1879). — 46. Swin- burne, A. C, Les Cenci, in Studies in Prose and Poetry (1894). — 47. Torrigiani, A., Clemente VIII. e il Processo della B. Cenci (1872). — 48. Vita di B. Cenci. Tratta dal Manoscritto Antico, con Annotazione sul Processo e Condanna. (Roma, 1849) . — 49. Wood, A., Athenae Oxonienses. (Ed. 1813). — 50. von Wurzbach, W., Philip Massinger, in Shakespeare Jahrhuch, XXXV, XXXVI. [To this list of references may be added the following: — 51. Introduction to Shelley's The Cenci, ed. G. E. Woodberry (1910).— 52. Crawford, F. Marion, Beatrice Cenci, The True Story of a Misunderstood Tragedy, in The Century Magazine, LXXV, 449-166. — 53. Chapin, H. G., The Crime and Trial of Beatrice Cenci, in The Green Bag, XII, 631]. The classification and specific references are given with sufficient fullness in the text. Function and Content of the Prologue, Chorus, and Other Non-Organic Elements in English Drama The pfrimary sources upon which the study is based are: 1 . The extant plays as listed in F. E. Schelling's Elizabethan Drama, vol. n, pp. 538-624, with the exception of (a) the Latin school drama, (6) the Masques, and (c) the plays stiU unedited in the British Museum, etc. — 2. York Plays, edited by Lucy Touhnin Smith (Ox- ford, 1885).— 3. Towneley Plays, edited by A. W. Pollard for the Early English Telxt Society (1897).— 4. Chester Plays, edited by BIBLIOGRAPHY 265 Thomas Wright for the Shakespeare Society (1847). — 5. Ludus Coventriae, edited by J. O. Halliwellfor the Shakespeare Society (1841). — 6. Les Origines latines du TMdtre moderne,hy E. DuM6ril (1897). — 7. Die lateinischen Osterfeiern, by K. Lange (1887). — 8. Les Pro- phhtes du Christ, Marius Sepet, in vols. 3-4, of the Bibliolktque de l'£cole des Charles (1867).— 9. Mummers and St. George Plays {Notes and (Queries, 2nd Series, vols. X, XI, XII; 4th Series, vol. X; Sth Series, vol. II. Publications of the London Folk Lore Society, vol. 36, p. 130). — 10. Dramas of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. — 11. Comedies of Plautus and Terence. — 12. Spenser Society's Tenne Tragedies of Seneca. — 13. First Folio of Shakespeare, Reprint by Methueii and Company (London, 1910). — 14. 1647 Folio of Beau- mont and Fletcher. — 15. 1616 Folio edition of Jonain. — 16. 1632 edition of Six Comedies of Lyly. — 17. 1633 edition of Tragedies and Comedies of Marsion. — 18. Bang's Materialien zur Kunde des dlteren englischen Dramas. The secondary sources and criticism consulted include: 1. Arber, E. (ed.). The Stationers' Register. — 2. Aronstein, P., "Jonsons Theorie des Lustspiels," Anglia, XVII (1895). — 3. Aron- stein, P., "Ben Jonson," in Literarhistorische Forschungen, XXXIV (1906).— 4. Bapst, G., Essai sur I'Histoire du TUdtre (Paris, 1893).— 5. Brand], A., Qudlen des weUlichen Dramas in England vor Shake- speare. — 6. Butcher, S. H., Soms Aspects of the Greek Genius. — 7. Butcher, S. H., Aristotle's Poetics. — 8. Chambers, E. K., The Medi- aeval Stage (1903). — 9. Collier, J. P., History of English Dramatic Poetry to the Death of Shakespeare: and Annals of the Stage to the Restoration. — 10. Collier, J. P., Memoirs of the Principal Actors in the Plays of Shakespeare (1846). — 11. Couat, A., Aristophane et I'ancienne Comedie attique. — 12. Courthope, W. ]., History of English Poetry (1895). — 13. Creizenach, W., Geschichte des neueren Dramas. —14. CroU, M. W., The Works ofFulke Gremlle (University of Pennsyl- vania, 1903). — 15. Cunliffe, J. VI., Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy (London, 1893). — 16. Davidson, C, Studies in the English Mystery Plays (1892).— 17. Donaldson, J. W., Theatre of the Greeks. — 18. Ebert, A., Die englischen Mysterien, in Jakrbuch fur romanische und englische Literatur. — 19. Fischer, R., Zur Kunstentwicklung der englischen Tragodie, etc.— 20. Fleay, F. G., A Shakespeare Manual. — ^21. Fleay, F. G., A Chronicle History of the London Stage (1890). — 22. Fleay. F. G., Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama (London, 1891). — 23. Francklin, Thomas, Dissertation on Antient Tragedy (1809).— 24. Gardiner, S. R. (ed.). Documents relating to the Proceedings against William Prynne in 1634 and 1637 (Camden Society, 1877).— 25. Gayley, C. M., Plays of Our Forefathers.— 26. 266 STUDIES IN ENGLISH DXAMA Gayley, C. M., Representative English Comedies. — 27. Gosson, Stephen, School of Abuse. — 28. Gosson, Stephen, Plays Confuted in Five Ac- tions.— 29. Greg, W. W., i4 List of English Plays Written before 1643.— 30. Greg, W. W.,A List of Masques, Pageants, etc. (1902).— 31. Gross- man, H., Ben Jonson als Kritiker (Berlin, 1898). — ^32. Grysar, K. J., Ueber das Canticum und den Chor in der romischen Tragodie. — ^33. Haigh, A. E., Tragic Drama of the Greeks. — 34. HalliweU, J. O., Dic- tionary of Old Plays. — 35. HalliweU-Phillips, Visits of Shakespeare's Cdmpany to the Provincial Cities. — 36. Hawkins, Origin of the English Drama. — 37. Hazlitt, W. C, English Drama and Stage under Titdor and Stuart Princes — ^38. Henslowe's Diary, edited by J. P. CoUier. — 39. Henslowe's Diary, edited by W. W. Greg.— 40. Herford, C. H., Literary Relations of England and Germany in the Sixteenth Century. —41. Heywood, T., Apology for Actors.— ^1. Hohlfeld,.A.,Z)Je Kol- lektivmisterien, in Anglia, XI. — 43. JIoiie,Wiiiiaxa, Ancient Mysteries Described. — 44. de Julleville, P., Bistoire du Thedtre au Moyen Age. — 45. Jusserand, J. J., Le Thidtre en Angleterre. — 46, Liebig, A. L. R., De Prologis Terentianis et Plautinis. — 47. Malone, Edward, Rise and Progress of the English Stage (1800). — 48. Manly, J. M., In- fluence of the Tragedies of Seneca upon Early English Drama. — 49. Mone, F. J., Schauspiele des Miitelalters. — 50. Murray, J. T., English Dramatic Companies, 1558-1642. — 51. Ordish, T. F., Early London Theatres.- — -52. Penniman, J. H., The War of the Theatres (in Publications of the University of Pennsylvania, 1897). — 53. Ridgeway, "Wm., Origin of Tragedy. — 54. von Schack, A. F., Die englischen Dramati- ker vor, neben, und nach Shakespeare. — ^55. Schelling, F. E., Eliza- bethan Drama (1908). — 56. Schelling, F. E., English Literature in the Lifetime of Shakespeare. — 57. ScheUing, F. E., The English Chronicle Play. — ^58. Schelling, F. E., Life and Writings of Gascoigne. — 59. Sharp, T., Dissertation on the Coventry Mysteries. — 60. Sheavyn, Phoebe, The Literary Profession in the Elizabethan Age (1909). — 61. Symmes, H. A., Les D&buts de la Critique dramatique en Angleterre jusqu'd la Mort de Shakespeare (Paris, 1903). — 62. Symonds, J. A., Shake- speare's Predecessors in the English Drama. — 63. Ten Brink, B., Geschichte der englischen Literatur. — 64. Thompson, E. N. S., Con- troversy between the Puritans and the Stage (Yale, 1903). — 65. Ward, A. W., History of English Dramatic Literature to the Death of Queen Anne. — 66. Ward and Waller (editors in chief), The Cambridge His- tory of English Literature, vols. V and VI, and other vols, by cross- reference. [To the above entries 2 and 3 should be added the fol- lowing, accidentally omitted in its proper place: Koeppel, Emil, "Ben Jonson's Wirkung auf zeitgenossische Dramatiker und andere Studien," in Anglistische Forschimgen, XX (1906) ]. BIBLIOGRAPHY 267 The following' serial publications have been consulted passim: 1. The Publications of the Modern Language Associaliori. — 2. Modern Philology. — 3. Englische Studien. — 4. Shakespeare Jahr- bttch. — S. H&iig's Archiv. — 6. The Modern Language Review. — 1. The Percy Society PMications. — 8. Jahresberickt der germanischen Philolo- gie. — ^9. The Early English Text Society Publications. — 10. The Shake- speare Society Publications. — 11. The New Shakespeare Society Pub- lications. INDEX Actors, data concerning, in pro- logues, etc.: 253-55. Adams, W. D.: 61, 260. Addresses to the Reader: 161, 162, 166, 201-2, 206; also 48, 238, 239. Adventures of Five Hours, The: 1, 2; its composition and early perform- ances, 6-14; attacked by Dryden, 14-19, and others, 19-20; criti- cized in Essay of Dramatic Poesy, 20-22; its historical significance, 22-45; the revised version of 1671, 46-58; later performances, 61; made into a prose comedy. The Perplexities, 34-35, 61; his- tory of The Adventures summar- ized, 59-61; bibliography, 259-61. Agamemnon(Seatca,): 124,125,203. Alaham: 180-181. Alarcon y Mendoza, Juan Ruiz de: 31. Alcazar, battle of: 67. Alexander, Sir William: 182. Alleyn, Edward (actor): 254. AU for Money: 250. Alphonsus, King of Arragon: 189. Alphonsus of Germany: 95, 96. Ancient British Drama, The: 259. Andronicus: 239. Annali d' Italia, see Mur atari. Annunciation: 209. Antipodes, The: 228. Antonio and Mellida: 198, 218, 238, 241. Antony and Cleopatra: 240. Appius and Virginia: 234. Arber, Edward: 32, 44, 49, 64, 87, 88, 94, 259, 261, 262, 265. Arcadia, The Countess of Pembroke's: 90. Arden of Feversham: 249. Arias, Beatrice: 145. Aristippus: 219. Aristophanes: 265. Aristotle: 35, 115, 173, 247, 265. Aronstein, P.: 265. Arras on stage: 235, 236. Arundell, Lord Henry: 21. Arviragus and Philicia: 95, 96. Astrdlogo Fingido, El: 30. As You Like It: 209. Austen, Jane: 219. Aylesbury, Sir Thomas: 111. Baker, D. E.: 260, 261. Baker, Harry (actor) : 253. Bale, John: 164, 165, 214, 221, 250. BaUol,John: 102. Ball, The: 233. Bandello, Matteo: 117. Bang, W.: 179,265. Banns, the: 215-16. Baptism of Jesus, The: 208. Baptystes: 221. Barnes, Bamabe: 68, 185. Barrera, Alberto de la: 23, 260. Bartholomew Fair: 199, 229, 231, 235. Bates, K. L.; 105. Battle of Alcazar, The: 177. Beatrice Cenci (Guerrazzi); 131, 132, 263. 269 270 INDEX Beatrice Cenci, Dramma (Carbone) : 132, 263. Beatrice Cenci, Five Scenes (Landor) : 131, 134, 135-6, 263. Beatrice Cenci, Racconto Storico: 130, 263. B. Cenci, tragedia (Niccolini): 132, 263. B. Cenci, tragedie (Custme): 132, 263. Beaumont, Francis: 2, 35, 203, 206, 207, 212, 216, 226, 229, 232, 233, 240, 247, 250, 254, 261, 265. Beard, Thomas: 117. Bedford, Lucy Russell, Countess of: 109. Beecher, Sir William: 109, 110. Beeching, H. C: 42. Behn, Aphra: 31, 261. Believe As You List: 239. Belleforest, F. de: 117. Bencini, B.: 263. Benefit nights: 233-34. Berkeley, Lord George: 256. Bertolotti, A.: 131, 133, 144^158, 263. Betterton, Mrs. Mary (actress): 8. Betterton, Thomas: 8, 51, 260. Betterton, Thomas: 42, 260. Beyle, M. H.: See Stendhal. Biographia Dramatica: 71, 72, 260, 261. Bird, Theophilus (actor): 253, 254. Blackfriars Theatre: 195, 227, 228, 230, 232, 237. Blackie, J. S.: 170, 191. Black Prince, The: 44. Blank verse: 41, 167, 224, 226. Bloundel, Lady Elizabeth: 72. Blount, Edward: 201, 207. Boas, F. S.: 179,216. Bondsman, The: 2, 256. Bowyer, William: 77, 92-93, 98. Boyle, William: 113. Brandon, Samuel: 182. Brazen Age, The: 178. Brfquigny, L. G. O. F. de: 119. Bride, The: 244. Bristol, George Digby, Earl of: 6-7, 30, 32, 58. British Museum Catalogue: 23, 86, 87, 260. Brome, Alexander: 205. Brome, Richard: 196, 203, 205, 218, 228. Brome Plays: 163, 164. Browne, Sir Thomas: 180. Bruce, Robert: 78, 102, 103, 104, 262. Bruzzone, P. L.: 263. Buckingham, George Villiers, Duke of: 109,110. Bull Theatre: 66,236. Burbage, Richard: 254. Burial and Resurrection of Christ: 202. Bumell, Henry: 219. Burnet, G.: 92. Bussy D'Ambois: 168, 177. Byron, George Gordon, Lord: 160. Caesar, Sir Charles: 111-112. Calderon de la Barca, Pedro: 23, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 61. Cambridge History of English Litera- ture, The: 166, 167, 169, 171, 172, 174, 175, 214, 221, 261, 266. Cambridge University Library: 87, 95. Cambyses: 167,250. Camden, William: 90. Campaspe: 216. Cane, Andrew: 66. Canfield, D. F.: 44, 260. INDEX 271 Carbone, G.: 132, 263. Cardinal, The: 239, 247, 253. Carliell, Lodowick: 35, 95, 260. Castle of Perseverance, The: 163,224. Catiline: 167, 185, 192, 193, 233. Cenci, Antonia: 134, 150, 152, 153. Cenci, Beatrice: 130-60; bibliog- raphy, 263-4. See, also, Bea- trice Cenci; also, Geschichte . . . i ; also, LSgende . . . ; also, Relation . . . . ; also, Testamento . . . . ; also, Storia di B. Cenci. Cenci, Bernardo: 132, 150, 151-2, 155, 156, 158. Cenci, Christoforo: 145, ISO. Cenci, Francesco: 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 145-152, 154, 155, 159. See, also, Francesco Cenci. Cenci, Giacomo: 131, 134, 138, 139, 149, 150, 154, 156, 158, 263, 264. Cenci, Les: see Stendhal. Cenci, Lucrezia: 131, 138, 146, 149, 154, 156, 158, 263, 264. Cenci, Paolo: 150, 151, 153. Cenci, Rocco: 150, 151, 153. Cenci story. The: popularity of, 130-31; literary versions of, 131- 43; historical facts of, 143-60; bibliography, 263-4. Cenci, The (Shelley): 131, 136-8, 141, 151, 264. CentUvre, Mrs. Susannah: 31. CkUlenge for Beauty, A: 242. Chamberlain, John: 110. Chambers, E. K.: 162, 163, 164, 210, 216, 265. Changeling, The: 2. Chapin,H.G.: 264. Chapman, George: 95, 168, 246. Character of Charles the Second, A: 4. Charles I: 95, 111, 112, 210, 212. See, also. Faithful .... Character. Charles II: 4, 26, 30, 31. Chase, L. N.: 35, 36, 38, 39, 42, 260. Chaucer, Geoffrey: 216, 251. Chauncey, Sir Henry: 106. Chester Plays: 198, 202, 264. Chettle, Henry: 215. Chad, C. G.: 35,44, 260. Children's companies: 237. Chorus: origin, 161-5; history synopsized, 165-8; functions and types, 168-71; classical chorus in England, 171-86; non-classical chorus in England, 186-95; sum- mary, 195-6, 257-8. Also, 69, 70, 187, 197, 201, 204, 213, 214, 245, 257, 266. Christian Directory, The: 90. Christian turn'd Turke, A: 73. Christ's Passion (Sandys) : 167. Gibber, Colley: 31. Cid, Le: 3. City Madam, The: 253. City Match: 230, 234. Claracilla: 3. Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl of: 7, 12, 259. Clement VIII, Pope: 130, 131, 133, 134, 136, 157, 159, 263, 264. Clemente VIII e il Prgcesso Crimi- nale delta B . Cenci: see Torrigiani. Cleopatra: 179. Club Law: 251. Cock-Pit Theatre: 65, 66, 228, 237, 254. Coello, Antonio: 23, 26, 58, 259. Cokaine, Sir Aston: 207, 232. Collier, J. P.: 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 71, 217, 250, 259, 261, 263, 265, 266. 272 INDEX Comedy, theory of: 193, 223, 244, 246, 249, 2S0-S1, 265. Comical Revenge, The, or Love in a Tub: 1, 12, 42, 44, 54. Committee, The: 16. Common Conditions: 190. Companies: children's, 237-8; prentices, 237-8; size of, 238. Condell, Henry (actor): 254. Conflict of Conscience, The: 223, 244. Congreve, William: 1. Consolatio ad Marciam (Seneca): 116, 120. Consolation to Mama (Freeman): 116. Conversion of St. Paul: 208. Crawford, F. M.: 264. "Contention" type of Induction: 169, 175, 187, 189, 197, 198. Comeille, Pierre: 3, 21, 30, 31, 33, 43, 44, 47, 49, 59, 60. Cornelia (Kyd): 172. Cornelie (Gamier): 172, 181. Coronation, The: 239. Cosimi, Quintilio: 130. Counterfeits, The: 31. Country Captain, The: 3. Couplet: see Heroic couplet. Couplet debate: see Stichomithia. Court Beggar, The: 218. Courthope, W. J.: 16, 69, 260, 261, 265. Covent Garden: 240. Covent Garden Theatre: 34, 61. Coventry Plays: 164, 223, 264, 266. Cowley, Abraham: 3,18,20,26,180. Coxcomb, The: 240. Creizenach, W.: 167, 237, 265. Criticism, literary, in prologues, etc.: 9-11, 15-18, 52, 56, 192-3, 194, 241-51. Croll, M. W.: 182, 265. Crowne, John: 31. Cruel Brother, The: 89. Cunliffe, J. W.: 120, 167, 216, 265. Curtains on stage: 236. Curtain Theatre: 228. Custine, M. de: 132, 263. Custom of the Country, The: 232, 233. Cutter of Coleman Street, The: 3, 11. Cynthia's Revels: 193^ 220, 230, 232, 235, 236, 239, 241. Dal Bono, C. T.: 132, 150, 155, 157, 159, 263. Dama Duende: 29. Damon and Pythias: 167, 208, 244, 249, 250. Dancer, John: 72. Daniel, Samuel: 90, 179, 182, 251, 252,255. Dauncey, John: 72. Davenant, Sir William: 1, 3, 7, 12, 35, 42, 43, 47, 60, 96, 227, 235, 259. Davenport, Mrs. (actress): 8. David and Bethsabe: 176. Day, John: 247. Dibat (or "contention"): 169, 187, 197. See also. Contention type of Induction. De Brevitate Vitae (Seneca): 116, 120. Dedication: origins of, 200-203; classes of dedicatees, 203; liter- ary values and types, 203-207. Also, 6, 44, 48, 233, 245, 246, 249, 251, 252, 253, 255, 256, 257-8. Defence of An Essay of Dramatic Poesy, A: 49. Dekker, Thomas: 183, 215 239 253. Delia: 90. INDEX 273 Dennis, John: 34. Dipit Amoureux, Le: 30. Devil is an Ass, The: 194, 232. Devil's Charter, The: 68, 185. Dialect in r^e Valiant Scot: 97-101. Dicke of Devonshire: 73. Dictionary of National Biography, The: 4, S, 20, 30, 31, 66, 105, 107, 260, 262. Dido: 191. Digby, George: see Bristol, Earl of. Digby, Kenelm: 256. Digby Plays: 163, 208, 222. Disobedient Child, The: 208, 235. Dodsley's Old Plays: 2, 5, 12, 44, 178, 218,, 259, 260. Dolce, Lodovico: 172. DonFenise: 31. Doomsday: 202. Doran, F. S. A.: 260. Dorian, Tola: 264. Doiset, Charles Sackville, Earl of: 43,44. Doubtful Heir, The: 227, 228. Downes, John, the prompter: 3, 6- 7, 8, 11, 29, 42, 259. Drama, purpose of, discussed in prologues, etc.: 212, 223, 243-47. Dramatists, data concerning, in prologues, etc.: 239, 255-6. Drayton, Michael: 89. Druiy Lane Theatre: 61. Dryden, John: 1, 12, 14-19, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48-51, 53, 55-56, 58, 59, 60, 96, 259, 260. Duchess ofMalfi, The: 2, 11, 254. Duke of Milan, The: 255. Duke of York's Theatre: 7, 42, 46. Dumas, A.: 263. Dumb Knight, The: 233. Dumb-show: 69, 171, 177-8, 196, 199. Du M6ril, E.: 164, 265. Duncomb, William: 91. Dutch Courtezan, The: 239. Dutch Lover, The: 31. Dyce, Alexander: 253. Eachard, Lawrence: 34, 260. Edward I of England (in The Valiant Scot and Blind Harry's Wallace) : 79, 82, 102. Edwards, Richard: 167, 243, 250. mder Brother, The (Fletcher): 90. Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia: 66. Elizabeth, Queen of England: 65, 67, 68, 69, 167, 197, 221, 235, 250, 251. Elizabethan Translations from the Italian: see Scott, M. A. Elvira: 7, 29, 32. Empenos de Seis Horas, Los: 6, 23- 25, 26, 33, 35-45, 58, 259. Emperor of the East, The: 90, 92, 228. English Lovers, The: or A Girl Worth Gold: 72. Epicedion in R . . . . Pree- mannum Reipublicae Londinensis Praetorum: 106. Epicene: see Silent Woman, The. Epilogue: origin, 161-5, 208, 210- 11; functions, 200-202, 209-11; object addressed, 214; new and separate epilogues, 215-17; in verse and prose, 218-20; in Reformation controversy, 220- 22; defend stage against foes, 222-3; metrical forms, 223- 5; later types and summary, 225-6, 257-8. Also, 9-11, 16- 17, 52, 55-56, 187, 227, 229, 230, 231, 233, 234, 239, 241, 249, 251, 253, 254. 274 INDEX Essay oj Dramatic Poesy, An: 1, 16, 21-22, 34, 48, 50, 51, 53. Estrif: 169, 197. See, also, Dibat. Etherege, Sir George: 1, 42, 44, 54, 59, 260. Eton College, 109-110. Euripides: 172. Evelyn, John: 4, 5, 6, 12, 18, 19, 20, 27, 43, 55, 60, 114, 259, 263. Evelyn, Mrs. Mary: 4, 5, 19, 259. Evening's Love, An, or The Mock As- trologer: 30,47. Everyman: 212. Every Man in His Humor: 241, 248. Every Man Out of His Humor: 38, 192-3, 198, 209, 230, 246. Example, The: 231, 232. Fair Maid oj the West, The: Edi- tions, 62-64; date, 64-69; sources, 69-70; later history, 71-74; bib- liography, 261-2. Faithful Shepherdess, The: 231. Faithful Yet Imperfect Character of a Glorious King, King Charles I, The: 5. Fan of Mortimer, The: 185. False Count, The: 31. False One, The: 240. Fanshawe, Sir Richard: 30. Farinaccio, Prospero: 131, 133, 134, 152, 157. Fausius, Doctor (Marlowe): 175. Favm, The: 234, 244. Feint Astrologue, Le: 30, 47. Female Glory, The: 90. Fen, Ezekiel (actor): 254. Fenton, Geoffrey: 119. Fine Companion, A: 228, 233, 248. Fillmore, Sir Edward: 44. Fischer, R.: 120, 121, 166, 169, 265. Fisher, Jasper: 166, 184. Fleay, F. G.: 62, 66, 67, 86, 216, 227, 228, 229, 237, 238, 239, 240, 252, 254, 261, 262, 265. Fletcher, John: 2, IS, 16, 35, 90, 91, 96, 196, 203, 206, 207, 212, 216, 225, 226, 229, 232, 240, 247, 250, 254, 261, 265. Floating Island, The: 240. Ford, John: 95, 96, 233, 249, 253, 264. Foster, F. A.: 177. Fox, Stephen: 114. Fortune by Land and Sea: 71, 74. Fortune Players: 236. Francesco Cenci e la sua Famiglia: see Bertolotti. Freeman, Martin: 107-108. Freeman, Ralph, the lord mayor: 106-108. Freeman, Sir Ralph: 105-115, 116, 117, 120, 122, 262, 263. Freeman, William: 107, 108. FuimMsTroes: 185-186. Filnf Stunden Abenteuer: 259. Gafton, Sir Francis: 109. Game at Chess, The: 199. Gamester, The: 239. Gammer Gurton's Needle: 163. Gamett, R.: 27, 260. Gamier, Robert: 172, 181, 182. Garrard, George: 111. Gascoigne, George: 163, 167, 172, 173, 218, 243, 266. Gayley, C. M.: 213, 265. General, The: 44. Genest, John: 3, 34, 61, 65, 69, 71, 72, 117, 260, 261, 262. Gentleman Dancing Master, The: 30-31, 32. Gentleman of Venice, The: 207. INDEX 275 Geschichte der Hinrichtung der B. Cenci: 131. Gibbon, Edward: 160 Gifiord, W.: 183, 192, 194, 264. Gismond of Salern: 172, 174, 188, 205, 236, 248. Glapthome, Henry: 215, 219, 235, 254. Glass of Government, The: 173, 174, 218, 243. Globe Theatre: 227, 228. Goblins, The: 249. Godfrey, L. B.: 105. Godolphin, Lord Sidney: 43. Golden Age, The: 178. Gorhoduc: 166, 167, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 185, 188. Gosse, Edmund: 16, 27, 42, 43, 44, 180, 260. Gosson, Stephen: 266. Goulart, Simon: 117. Gray, C. H.: 44,260. Great Duke of Florence, The: 255. Great Favorite, The, or The Duke of Lerma: 48. Greek drama: 169, 170, 191, 192, 265, 266. Greene, Robert: 190. Greenstreet Papers, The: 66, 261. Greg,W. W.: 105,262,266. GreviUe, Fulke: 180, 181, 182, 265. Guerrazzi, F. D.: 131, 132, 263. Guzman: 30, 32. HaUiwell-Phillipps, J. O.: 203, 260, 262, 265, 266. Hamilton, William, Marquis of: 77, 86, 91, 92, 98. Hamlet: 237. Hammon, Thomas: 256. Hannibal and Scipio: 230, 232, 233. Harby, Sir Robert: HI. Harper, Thomas: 75, 94-5, 262. Harris, Henry (actor) : 8. Harvey, Stephen: 108. Hatton, Sir Thomas: 112. Haymarket Theatre: 61, 71. Hazlitt, W. C. : 71, 72, 242, 259, 261, 262, 266. HazUtt, WiUiam: 180. Heath, Sir Robert, Solicitor General: 109. Hector of Germany, The: 238, 239. Henrietta Maria, Queen of England: 21, 62, 235. Henry IV, Pt. I: 69. Henry IV, Pt. II: 217.' Henry V (Orrery) : 44. ^Tewry 7 (Shakespeare): 177,183-4, 189, 196, 236. Henry VIII: 12, 231. Henry, Prince, son of James I: 251- 2, 255. Henry the Minstrel (or Blind Harry): 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 85, 96, 104, 262. Henslowe, Philip: 201, 215, 266. Heraclius (CarUell) : 44. HiracUus (Comeille) : 44. Herbert, Sir Henry: 64, 90, 254. Hercules Fwens (Seneca) : 124, 125, 129. Hercules Oetaeus (Seneca?): 124, 125, 128, 167, 172. Herford, C. H.: 173, 266. Heroic couplet, the: 23, 41, 42-45, 48, 58, 225, 226. Heroic play, the: 1, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 57, 59, 60, 250. Heroic Plays, Of: 43. Haywood, John: 216. Heywood, Thomas: 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 95, 178, 205, 206, 207, 215, 216, 236, 238, 242, 254, 266. 276 INDEX Hickscorner: 165. Hieronymo: 239. Hippolytus {Stneca.): 172. Histoire Veritable de la Mart de J. etB. Cenci, etc.: 131, 263. Histoires Admirables et MimoraUes de Nostre Temps: 117-18. History of the Generation and Order- ing of Green Oysters, Commonly Called Colchester Oysters: 5. History of Annaxander and Orazia: 91. History of the Royal Society, A: S, 11, 259. Histriomastix: 209. Hog Hath Lost His Pearl, The: 237, 238. Holland's Leaguer: 238. Holzhausen, P.: 35, 260. Hope Theatre: 231. Horace: 14, 18, 46, 52, 213, 243, 249. Howard, Henry: 6, 14. Howard, Sir Robert: 16, 44, 48-49, 50, 53, 54. Howell, Thomas: 89. Hull, Thomas: 34, 61, 259. Hume, M. A. S.: 12, 32, 260. Hunt, M. L.: 183. Huntingdon, Lucy Hastings, Coun- tess of: 21. Huntley, Dick (actor): 253. Hyde, Edward: see Clarendon, Earl of. Hymen's Triumph: 182. Bymnus Tobaci: 89. If this be not a Good Play, the Pevil is in It: 234. // 7oa Krum Not Me You Know Nobody: 67. Imperiale: Biographical data con- cerning Sir Ralph Freeman, 105- 15; history and sources, 115-19; Senecan influence in, 120-29; bibliography, 262-3. Indian Emperor, The: 11, 22, 35, 47, 49. Indian Queen, The: 22, 35, 44, 47. Induction: its origin, 164; its char- acter and function, 196-7; types, 198-200; summary, 257. Also, 187, 201, 213, 219, 220, ,229, 230, 231, 232, 235, 236, 249, 254. Iron Age, The: 238. Interludes: 243. Intermeans: 193, 194, 237, 241. Jack Juggler: 243. Jacob and Esau: 221, 222. Jacobs, Giles: 260. James I, Eling of England: 66, 95, 98, 210, 237, 263. Jamieson, J.: 77, 78, 262. Jealous Lovers, The: 205. Jew of Malta, The: 205, 254. Jocasta: 172. Jihn, King, and Matilda: 253. Johnson, Samuel: 182. Jonson, Ben: 2, 15, 16, 21, 33, 34, 38, 42, 49, 75, 167, 168, 169, 171, 181, 183, 185, 190, 191, 192-5, 196, 197, 198, 199, 206, 207, 209, 212, 218, 220, 223, 226, 231, 232, 233, 237, 239, 240, 241, 242, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 251, 252, 261, 265, 266. Josephus in English: 90. Joyner, William: 18. Juditium: 208. Julleville, P. de: 162, 266. Jusserand, J. J.: 67, 261, 266. Just Italian, The: 89. INDEX 277 Kalharsis in narrative and in drama: 118. Kemble, Stephen (actor): 71. Kemble, Mrs. Stephen (actress) : 71. Kemp, William (actor) : 2S4. Killigrew, Thomas: 3, 29, 31, 32. Kitting of the Children, The {Digby): 111. King John and Matilda: see John, King, and Matilda. King Lear: 137. King's House (or Theatre Royal): 14, 19. King's Men, The: 238. King's Revels Boys, The: 229. Kirkman, Francis (printer): 201. Knight of the Burning Pestle, The: 216, 219, 229, 23S, 239, 244. Koeppel, Emil: 138-9, 266. Kyd, Thomas: 172, 181, 187, 189, 216. Lady Alimony: 220, 230, 234, 235. Lady Elizabeth's Men, The: 66, 254. Lamb, Charles: 180,181. Landgartha: 219. Landor, Walter Savage: 131, 134, 135, 141, 144, 264. Langbaine, Gerard: 31, 34, 72, 117, 119, 129, 260, 261, 262, 264. "Laws of Honor:" 5, 36. Lazarus {Chester): 198. Leanerd, John: 31. Lee, Sidney: 14, 260, 261. Leech, Sir Edward: 112. Ugende de la Cenci, La: 263. L'itourdi: 47. life of Sidney (Greville): 180. Lingua: 90. Liturgical drama: 162, 164. Lives of the Most Famous English Poets: see Winstanley, W. Locrine: 175,188. London Chanticleers, The: 234. Long, Colonel James: 18, 45. Looking-Glass for London and Eng- land, A: 176. Lounsbury, T. R.: 260. Love and Honour: 3, 4. Love's Mistress: 236. Love's Sacrifice: 233. Lowe, R. W.: 42,260. Lower, Sir William: 3. Lowin, John (actor) : 254. Ludus Coventriae: see Coventry Plays. Lupton, Thomas: 250. Lyly, John: 206, 207, 216, 218, 228, 265. Macbeth: 191. Mackay,A.; 102,262. Mackenzie, Dr. George: 77. Maestro de Danzar, El: 31. Magnetic Lady, The, or Humors Reconciled: 194, 229, 230, 233. Magnificence: 165. Maid of Honor, The: 90, 255. Maid's Tragedy, The: 67. Mejor Esla que Estaba: 29. Malartie, A. de: 131, 264. Makontent, The: 199, 205, 209, 231, 232, 240, 254. Malone, Edward: 16, 47, 227, 237, 238, 239, 260, 264, 266. Mankind: 163, 224. Marlowe, Christopher: 175, 205. Marmion, Shakerley: 228, 248. Marriage of Wit and Science, The: 208, 218. Marriage d la Mode: 55, 60. 278 INDEX Marston, John: 190, 197, 199, 205, 206, 234, 237, 238, 265. Martyred Soldier, The: 216. Mary Magdalen (Digby): 202, 208. Mary Magdalen (Wager): 243, 249. Massinger, Phffip: 2, 74, 89, 90, 91, 92, 138-43, 144, 149, 196, 212, 228, 252, 253, 255, 256, 263, 264. Maulston, Sir Thomas: 107. Mayne, Jasper: 230. Medea (Euripides) : 137. Medea (Seneca): 124, 125, 126, 127. "MEIpomene:" 12-13, 18-19, 45. Mendoza, A. de: 30. Menteur, Le: 31. Merry Devil vf Edmonton, The: 194, 198. Messalina: 249. Meyn, L.: 259. Michaelmas Term: 199. Middleton, Thomas: 2, 199, 215, 229, 231, 239. Midsummer-Night's Dream, A: 185. Misfortunes of Arthur, The: 174, 175, 197, 198. Misogonus: 243. MoliSre (Jean Baptiste Poquelin): 21, 30, 47. Mompeson, Sir Giles: 110. Monarchicke Tragedies: 182. Monsieur Thomas: 91. Moore, Adrian: 107. Morality Play: 165, 176, 187, 213, 214, 224. Moreto, Augustin: 30, 31. Morocco: 67. Morrel,Hugh: 112. Morris, John, dedicatee of Im- periale: 114, 116. Mucedorus: 197. Mulai Ahmet El-Mansour: 67. Mulai Sheik: 67-68. MuUisheg: see Mulai Sheik. Muratori, L. A.: 133, 152, 264. Murray, Thomas: 109. Muses' Elysium, The: 89. ' Muses' Looking-Glass, The: 169, 195. Mustapha: 22, 35, 44, 180-81. Mystery plays: 163, 164, 198, 208, 209, 213, 214, 265, 266. Nabbes, Thomas: 229, 230,2 40, 252. Nash, Thomas: 191. Nature of the Four Elements, The: 229, 241, 249. Needham, Jasper: 18, 19. Nettleton, G. H.: 261. Newcastle, William Cavendish, Earl of, later Duke of: 3, 47, 256. New Custom: 221. New Inn, The: 235, 236. News from Plymouth: 227, 228. Newton, Thomas: 203-5, 212. Niccolmi, G. B.: 132, 264. Nichols, J.: 106, 263. Noble Gentleman, The: 216. Nobody and Somebody: 219. No Puede Ser: 30, 31. Northampton, Earl of: 110. Northern Inn, The; or the good Times of Queen Bess: 71. Norton, Sir Albert: 110. Norwich Plays: 210. No Siempre lo Peor es Cierto: 30. No Wit, No Help Like a Woman's: 229, 231. Obstinate Lady, The: 207, 232. Octavia (of Latin Senecan school) : 124. Oedipus (Seneca): 124, 127, 172. Oedipus Tyrannus (Sophocles) : 137. INDEX 279 Old Comedy, the: 246, 265. Old Fortunatus: 183. Old Wives' Tale, The: 189-90, 197. "Opera", the:!, 3, IS, 42, 59. Ordinary, The: 244. Orlando Furioso: 190. Orrery, Charles Boyle, Earl of: 30, 32, 35, 42, 44, 48, S3, 96. Othdlo: 14. Ovid: lis, 129, 186. Painter, William: 119. Pardoner and the Frere, The: 216. Parisina (Byron): 160. Parnassus plays, the: 200, 254. Parson's Wedding, The: 29, 32. Patient Grisdda: 224. Patronage: 206, 207, 251, 2S6. Patterson, John: 114. Paules, Richard: 108. Paul's Boys: 229,237. Pearson, John: 63, 64, 65. Peek, George: 189, 190, 198. Penniman, J. H.: 240, 266. Pennycuicke, Andrew: 253. Peor Esta que Estaba: 29. Pepys, Samuel: 3, 5, 7-8, 13-14, 29, 30, 33, 44, 46, SO, 54, 114, 259. Performance, length and time of: in Restoration court perform- ance, 54; in Elizabethan public performance, 229-30. Pericles: 239. Perplexed Lovers, The: 31. Perplexities, The: 34, 61, 259. Perkins, Richard (actor): 254, 255. Perhin Warbeck: 95, 96, 249. Phaedra (Seneca) : 124, 125, 126. Phedre (Racine): 137. Phen: see Fen, Ezekiel. Phillips, John: 224. Philips, Mrs. Katherine: 43. Philolas: 90, 251, 2SS. Phoenissae (Seneca): 124, 127, 128. Phoenix Theatre: 228, 232. Picture, The: 90. Plautus: 208, 210, 243, 265, 266. Plays, data concerning, in prologues, etc.: 239-40. Play to the Country People, A: 222. Play of the Old Testament (at St. Paul's): 237. Plot and No Plot, A: 34. Plutarch: 115. Poetaster, The: 219, 230, 241. Poet's nature and function: 244-5, 247-9. Pollard, A. W.: 224, 264. Pollard, Thomas (actor): 253-4. PompSe (ComeiHe): 43. Pompey (Waller, et al.) : 44. Porter, Endimion: 256. Porter, Thomas: 3, 11. Poulter's measure: 224. Preface: see Addresses to the Reader. Preston, Thomas: 167. Prescott, W. H.: 260. Price, Joseph (actor) : 8. Price of admission to theatre: 230- 31. Pride of Life: 165, 222, 223. Prologue: origin, 161-165,208, 210- 11; functions, 200-202; kinds. 211-214; object addressed, 214; popularity, 214; speaker, 214- 215; new and stock prologues, 215-217; in verse and prose, 218- 220; in Reformation controversy, 220-222; give facts otherwise lost, 222; defend stage against foes, 222-223; metrical forms, 223- 225; later types and summary, 225-226, 257-8. Also, 186, 189, 193, 196, 197, 199, 200, 227, 230, 280 INDEX 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 249, 2S0, 253, 254, 255, 256, 266. Promos and Cassandra: 218, 242, 249. Prophetae: 163,265. Prophetess, The: 196. Prose in prologues and epilogues: 217-20, 224, 225. Proud Maid, The: 66. Proitd Maid oj Plymouth, The: 67. Prynne, William: 206, 265. Puritans, the: 194, 195, 204, 210, 243, 245, 266. Queen Anne's Men: 67. Queen oj Arragon, The: 230, 238. Queen's Arcadia, The: 90. Queen's Men, the: 238. Queen's Revels Children, the: 229, 238. Querer por solo querer: 30. Kacine, Jean Baptiste: 44. Ralph Roister Doister: 208, 243. Randolph, Thomas: 166, 195, 205, 219. Rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune, The: 166, 175, 187, 189. Rasselas: 182. Reformation, the: 210, 212, 217, 221-22. Relation de la Mort de G.elB. CenH: 131, 264. Remaines concerning Britain: 90. Renegado, The: 74, 89. Respublica: 221-22, 237. Return from Parnassus, The: 254. Revenge of Bussy D'Ambois, The: 168, 177, 246. Rhymed couplet: see Heroic couplet. Richard III, The True Tragedy of: 177. Richards, Nathaniel: 249. Rochester, John Wilmot, Earl of: 20. Rival Ladies, The: 11, 17, 29, 32, 44, 47, 48, 50, 60. Roaring Girl, The: 237, 239. Robert, Earl of Huntington, The Death of: 178. Robert, Earl of Huntington, The DmvnfaU of: 177, 178, 200. Roman Actor, The: 255. Romeo and Juliet: 184. Rover, The: 31. Rowley, William: 2, 74, 248. Royal King and Loyal Subject: 95, 96, 212, 216, 229. Royston, Richard: 64. Sacrament, Play of the (Croxton): 208. Sandford, Samuel factor): 8. St. George Plays: 163, 210, 265. St. Serfe, Sir Thomas: 30, 32. Saintsbury, George: 16, 17, 27, 29, 30, 259, 260. Salisbury Court Theatre: 228, 229, 232, 237, 238. Sandys, George: 167. Sarrazin, G.: 264. Satire of persons in comedies denied: 223. Satiromastix: 230. Schaffer, A.: 23, 260. Schanz, M.: 124. Schelling, F. E.: 35, 39, 42, 67, 166, 167, 182, 222, 242, 261, 262, 264, 266. Scott, M. A.: 143. Scott, Sir Walter: 16, 20, 27, 259, 260. INDEX 281 Secrtt Love: 47, 49. Sedley, Sir Charles: 43. S^anus: 168, 177, 192, 233, 239, 245, 246. Seneca: 115, 116, 120-29, 166, 167, 169, 172, 175, 182, 186, 203, 204, 213, 216, 265, 266. Seftecan drama: 169, 171, 172, 174, 175, 181, 182, 183, 185, 187, 213, 265, 266. See, also, Cunliffe, J.W. Sessions of the Poets: 5, 20. Sextus V, Pope: 147. Shadwell, Thomas: 50. Shakespeare, William: 2, 47, 76, 137, 183, 184, 198, 203, 206, 207, 217, 227, 238, 239, 240, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267. Shelley, Percy B.: 130, 131, 136-8, 141, 144, 145, 151, 160, 264. Shepherd, Richard Heme: 63. She Would and She Would Not: 31. Sheavyn, P.: 206, 251, 266. Shirley, Henry: 216. Shirley, James: 2, 205, 206, 207, 215, 227, 228, 231, 232, 233, 234, 239, 247, 251, 253. Shoemaker a Gentleman, A: 248. Sidney, Sir Philip: 33, 90, 180. Siegel, G.: 31, 261. Siege of Rhodes, The: 1, 3, 4, 11, 15, 22, 35, 41, 42, 43, 59. SOeni Woman, The: 34, 48, 49, 54, 71. Silver Age, The: 178. Sir Clyopton and Sir Clamydes: 190. Sir Courtly Nice: 31. Sir Martin Mar-All: 47. Sisters, The: 234, 251. Sly, W. (actor): 254. Smith, William (actor): 8. SoUman and Perseda: 189, 197. Sophonisba; til. Sophy, The: 234. Southampton, Henry Wriothesley, Earl of: 256. Spanish influence on English drama: 23, 27-32, 59. "Spanish Plots:" 9, 15, 16, 22, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 59. Spanish Tragedy, The: 179, 187-88. Spingam, J. E.: 50, 259, 261. Sprat, Thomas: 5, 11, 259. Stafford, Anthony: 90. Stage: hangings, 235, 236; proper- ties, 236. Stanley, Henry: 109. Stanzaic forms in prologue, chorus, etc.: 174r-5, 181-2, 185, 186,211. Staple of News, The: 89, 91, 193, 194, 232, 237. Stapylton(Stapleton), Sir Robert: 3. Stationers' Register, The: 47, 64, 87, 88, 89-91, 94, 106, 116, 259, 261, 262, 265. Steele, Sir Richard: 31. Stendhal (M. H. Beyle): 131, 133, 145, 263, 264. Stephen, Leslie: 261, 264. Stichomithia: 41, 42, 58, 59, 120, 122. Stolen Heiress, The: 31. Storia di B.Cenci: see Dal Bono. Strode, William: 240. Studley, John: 203. Stylistic criticism in prologues, etc.: 249. Suckling, Sir John: 20. SiMen Lovers, The: 50. Summer's Last Will and Testament: 190-91. Sun's Darling, The: 205, 253. Supposes, The: 163, 218. Sutton, Richard: 109. 282 INDEX Swan Theatre: 71. Swinburne, A. C: 130, 137, 138, 145, 160, 264. Swizzer, The: 248. Sword Play: 163, 210. Symmes, H. A.: 197, 204, 243, 266. ^fmons, A.: 138, 264. Symonds, J. A.. 63, 266. Table-books: 232-33. Tambuilaine: 239. Taming of a Shrew, The: 189, 190, 197, 198. Taming of the Shrew, The (Shake- speare) : 197, 198. Tancred and Gismunda: see Osmond of Salern. Tarugcfs Wiles, or the Cofee-House: 30, 32. Tatham,John: 236. Tempest, The (Dryden): 47. Temaie Tragedies (of Seneca): 166, 203. Terence: 193, 208, 210, 216, 243, 260, 265, 266. Terence's Comedies MadeEngUsh: 34. Terens in English: 242. Testamento di B. Cenci: 263. Theatre of God's Judgments (Beard) : 117. Theatres, as referred to in prologues, etc.: types of, 232, 236-7; charac- teristics of and customs in, 215- 16, 227-39. See, also, names of separate theatres: Blackfriars; Butt; Cock-Pit; Covent Garden; Curtain; Drury Lane; Duke of York's; Globe; Haymarket; Hope; King's House; Phoenix; Salisbury Court; Swan; Whitefriars; also Whitehall Palace. See, also. Per- formance, Thierry and Theodoret: 216. Thomas, Lord Cromwell: 179. Thomaso the Wanderer: 31. Thracian Wonder, The: 184. Thyestes (Seneca): 124, 125, 126, 127, 129. Ticknor, George: 29, 30, 260. Timber (Jonson): 193. Timon: 234. 'Tis Better than it Was: 29. Tom Tyler: 224, 243. Torrigiani, A.. 131, 133, 264. Tottenham Court: 229, 252. Towneley Plays: 208, 264. Tragedy, theory of: 118,245,246-7, 251, 265, 266. Tragi-comedy: 173, 250. TraiU, H. D.: 27. Trapolin Supposed a Prince: 232. Trepanner Trepanned, The: 31. Travailes of Three English Brothers, The: 73. Troades (Senea): 124. Troilus and Cressida: 217, 219, 241. Trois Unites, Les (Corneille): 33, 59. Two Merry Women of Abingdon: 219. Two Noble Kinsmen: 90. Two Tragedies in One: 191-2. Tuke, George: 4, 12, 27. Tuke, Sir Samuel: 1, 4-5, 17, 18, 20-21, 22, 25, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51-56, 58-59, 259-60. Tupper, J. W.: 35, 38, 39, 261. Tumbling rime: 224, 226. Tyrannic Love: 47. Ulrici, H.: 184. Underbill, Cave (actor): 8. Unfortunate Lovers, The: 235. INDEX 283 Unities, the: 9-11, 21, 33-35, 48- 50, 53-55, 59, 170, 242, 245-6. Unnatural Combat, The: 91, 138- 143, 149, 255, 264. Vacation Play: 235. Valiant Scot, The: editions, 75; literary and historical value, 75- 6; source, 77-85; authorship, 86- 93; its printer, 94r-5; its literary affiliations, 95-7; dialect in, 97- 101; in relation to history, 101- 3; time interval of, 103-4; bib- liography, 262. Vega, Lope de: 33. Verdad Sospechosa: 31. Verity, A. W.: 63, 64, 66. ViUain, The: 3, 11. Virtuous Octavia: 182. Vita di B. Cenci, traito dal Manoscrit- to Aniico: 132, 264. Volpone: 209, 240, 245, 251. Wager, Lewis: 243, 249. Walker, J. E.: 71. Wallace, Sir William: the historical character, 101-3; as depicted by "J. W." and Harry the minstrel respectively, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 93, 96, 103, 104, 262. Wallace fby Harry the Minstrel): 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 96, 104, 262. Waller, Edmund: 42, 43. Walsingham, Sir Thomas: 256. Wanley, Nathaniel: 117. Ward, A. W.: 16, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31-32, 43, 44, 66, 86, 202, 260, 261, 266. Warning for Fair Women, A: 236, 249. War of the Theatres: 199, 210, 218- 19, 240-41, 266. Warton, Thomas: 242. Wase, Christopher: 12, 18. Waterson, John: 75, 77, 86, 87-92, 93, 98, 262. Waterson, Richard: 87-88. Waterson, Simon: 88, 89, 90. Wealth and Health: 208. Webster, John: 2,228,254. What You Will: 197, 199. Whetstone, George: 242, 246, 249. White Devil, The: 228. Whitefriars Theatre: 229, 237. Whitehall Palace theatrical per- formances: 46, 54, 228. Widow, The: 239. Wild Gallant, The: 14r-17, 19, 26, 28, 29, 32, 43, 47, 50, 60. Wily Beguiled: 198. Winstanley, William: 72,261. Winter's Tale, A: 184. Witch of Edmonton, The: 254. Wit in a Constable: 219. Wits, The: 3. WitWithout Money: 230. Woman Hater, The: 216, 226, 232. 233. Women in Elizabethan audiences: 234-5. Wonder, The: 31. Wonders of the Little World, The: 117. Wood, Anthony k: 4, 34, 92, 259, 260,264. Woodes, Nathaniel: 244. Worse andWorse: 29. Wotton, Sir Henry: 110. Wurzbach, W. von: 264. 284 INDEX Wycherley, William: 30, 32. Wjmtoun, Andrew of: 102. Yale Dramatic Association: 71. Yamall, E. A.: 20. Yarrington, Robert: 191. York Plays: 163, 164, 165, 199, 208, 209, 264. Young, (actor) : 8. Young, K.: 216. Your Five Gallants: 199. Youth: 163. ERRATUM. Page 109, line 22: For General Geath read General Heath. + 'liliit ilii i ::ti:W(liiiinHtt